Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: Jtuxyan on March 20, 2010, 11:26:43 am

Title: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 20, 2010, 11:26:43 am
I have questions about Anarcho-Capitalist theory, which I hope this board will be able to answer. First, for the purposes of this thread, we assume that AnCap theory is basically correct -- so the less libertarian members of this board (myself included) should refrain from criticizing the basic concept of such a society. The roads get paid for, the fire department gets paid for, etc. This is a question as to one specific aspect of that.

In order to not be conquered by it's Statist neighbors, an AnCap state would need to raise it's own armed forces. Escape from Terra's hilariously incompetent Terran navy aside, modern armed forces are never defeated by informal millita. A resistance could probably drive the invader our sooner or later, but we'll take it as a given that the occupants of our AnCap area would rather not be conquered in the first place, and so raise a private army.

My question then, is this. A military needs many supplies in order to function -- Food, ammo, the right to set up listening posts and defensive structures, etc. So isn't this a distortion of the basic "no coercion" model? As long as a majority of the country supports the military action, they are in a position of being able to use force without responce, thus violating the premise of the AnCap state.

To give an example, suppose I am this armed forces primary supplier of bullets, and I feel the current price they are paying me is insufficient. They insist that as this ammo is a vital strategic resource, I cannot stop shipping it during the negotiations. This is a seemingly minor detail, but it does qualify as coercion -- the military can drag the negotiations out as long as they want, and my only reprive would be to hope that my neighbors feel as strongly about this as I do, since if I tell them to go to hell, they have the force to just take the ammo.

A better example might be imminent domain. The military wants to assemble a SAM battery to protect a given city, and my property (on the outskirts) is the best location. I refuse to sell -- so they just seize it by force. It's possible that the population of the city might rise up to help me, but it's also very possible they might decide that they *like* being protected by a SAM battery, and I should have sold the land for a fair price when they offered me the chance to do so.

While I could give other examples, the basic theory remains. A nation is best defended by a large, well organized, modern military -- but a single large body with access to lots of armed men trained to obey orders without question distorts the basic assumption of an AnCap society, taking on certain government traits by default.

How could an AnCap society avoid this, without violating the premise of the society?
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: SandySandfort on March 20, 2010, 12:16:00 pm
I continue to invite you all to actually expend some brain cycles to figure out how you would solve the "problems" you pose.

So here is my scenario. Assume that you live in a stateless society and you believe the society should have a military. What would you do to achieve that result without violating the non-aggression principle? Nobody here is stupid. The reason you don't see the obvious answers is that you are unwilling/unable to think outside the box. (I blame government schools, but that's a rant for another time.) As Rand would have said, "check your premises." I think you will see some things that you believe, yet never questioned in the past. Question them now, please.

I have questions about Anarcho-Capitalist theory, which I hope this board will be able to answer. First, for the purposes of this thread, we assume that AnCap theory is basically correct -- so the less libertarian members of this board (myself included) should refrain from criticizing the basic concept of such a society. The roads get paid for, the fire department gets paid for, etc. This is a question as to one specific aspect of that.

In order to not be conquered by it's Statist neighbors, an AnCap state would need to raise it's own armed forces. Escape from Terra's hilariously incompetent Terran navy aside, modern armed forces are never defeated by informal millita. A resistance could probably drive the invader our sooner or later, but we'll take it as a given that the occupants of our AnCap area would rather not be conquered in the first place, and so raise a private army.

My question then, is this. A military needs many supplies in order to function -- Food, ammo, the right to set up listening posts and defensive structures, etc. So isn't this a distortion of the basic "no coercion" model? As long as a majority of the country supports the military action, they are in a position of being able to use force without responce, thus violating the premise of the AnCap state.

To give an example, suppose I am this armed forces primary supplier of bullets, and I feel the current price they are paying me is insufficient. They insist that as this ammo is a vital strategic resource, I cannot stop shipping it during the negotiations. This is a seemingly minor detail, but it does qualify as coercion -- the military can drag the negotiations out as long as they want, and my only reprive would be to hope that my neighbors feel as strongly about this as I do, since if I tell them to go to hell, they have the force to just take the ammo.

A better example might be imminent domain. The military wants to assemble a SAM battery to protect a given city, and my property (on the outskirts) is the best location. I refuse to sell -- so they just seize it by force. It's possible that the population of the city might rise up to help me, but it's also very possible they might decide that they *like* being protected by a SAM battery, and I should have sold the land for a fair price when they offered me the chance to do so.

While I could give other examples, the basic theory remains. A nation is best defended by a large, well organized, modern military -- but a single large body with access to lots of armed men trained to obey orders without question distorts the basic assumption of an AnCap society, taking on certain government traits by default.

How could an AnCap society avoid this, without violating the premise of the society?
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Zilabus on March 20, 2010, 05:07:07 pm
I continue to invite you all to actually expend some brain cycles to figure out how you would solve the "problems" you pose.

So here is my scenario. Assume that you live in a stateless society and you believe the society should have a military. What would you do to achieve that result without violating the non-aggression principle? Nobody here is stupid. The reason you don't see the obvious answers is that you are unwilling/unable to think outside the box. (I blame government schools, but that's a rant for another time.) As Rand would have said, "check your premises." I think you will see some things that you believe, yet never questioned in the past. Question them now, please.

So your answer to the question brought up is essentially "You aren't smart enough to think outside the box and figure them out yourself. So I'm going to repost what you posted, and tell you to come to the obvious libertarian solutions present." So if you aren't coming up with all of these easily findable libertarian solutions, you've been brainwashed by public schools? I'm sure you wouldn't repond well if you where told "All of your libertarian solutions or silly and foolish, If you wheren't blinding yourself to see problems with government, you would easily find solutions within government. You're just taking a libertarian stance because you don't want to exist in the reality of today, and want to be outside the mainstream." Are you joking to poke fun at commonly seen circular logic in political discussion today, or are you really seriously presenting that as an answer?
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: SandySandfort on March 20, 2010, 06:38:01 pm
So your answer to the question brought up is essentially "You aren't smart enough to think outside the box and figure them out yourself.

<Sigh>  Actually, what I wrote was pretty much the opposite of your interpretation. If I thought you weren't smart enough to get it, I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. What purpose would that have served? But ultimately, you have to get it on your own. And for that to happen, you need to have the courage to question your beliefs. I started out as a conservative who believed that government was good and created for the benefit of the government. Been there, done that. It took me years of reading, thought and introspection to shed all the crap assumptions I was taught in public schools. I got enlightened, so can you.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Sean Roach on March 20, 2010, 06:53:50 pm
He's tired of answering the same questions repeatedly.  He's said as much in another thread.

I'll bite.  Let's start with bullets.  I think I'm paying you what I can afford for bullets, which I need.  You think I'm stiffing you.  Okay, I buy from someone else.
Perhaps we agree that you continue to manufacture on the hopes I'll buy, but not deliver until payment is finalized.

If we're in an actual state of conflict, it'd be in your best interest to give me the lowest possible price that still lets you run the shop tomorrow.  Even if your neighbor refuses to pay, it's still in YOUR best interest to cover him too, just as in the case with fire protection, for the benefit it provides you.  The moment this ceases to be true, you vacate, tell your customers you've moved, and he can cover fire protection, private security, and territorial defense all on his own.
You might RESENT him not paying his fair share, but until it costs you more to cover more of it yourself than it does to back off on your own preparations, you do so anyway.
If the community militia treasurer won't pay you enough to stay in business, you go talk to a competing militia about selling to them instead.  They are convinced they can do the same job with less money overall, and still afford to buy better gear.
If I can't convince you that I CAN'T AFFORD to pay you more for your ammo, I ask a competing manufacturer to sell me some for less, or perhaps I learn new ways to do with less.  Less spray-n-pray, more dry-firing, perhaps MORE practice so every shot in the field counts.
Of course, if you cut off your supply at the bargain basement price, the new bullet factory I just helped my brother-in-law fund will get the contract, and you won't be selling any more bullets to us, ever, at any price.  If the community thinks your prices were too steep, you might not be selling any to anyone else either.

Now, let's look at that SAM site.  I'm convinced your site gives the best possible coverage against incoming attacks.  Well, it would, you chose a very nice piece of oceanfront property that, due to geography manages to stay dry, (cliffside overlooking the ocean.)
Now, for whatever reason, you've place a, in my opinion, rather high value on that piece of property, but then again, the SAM site wouldn't be protecting you, would it?  Once I bought you out, you'd be without property and possibly moving on.
Well, I prefer your spot, but your neighbor does have a suitable site, and if he won't sell, your other neighbor plus a small patch just north collectively provide good coverage.  After that, I tell everyone their city is in danger, I'm throwing up my hands and leaving.  The property values of that place just went down because it can't be reasonably defended.  You now have a bunch of people who won't talk to you.  Fewer than you did, because quite a few decided they'd rather live down the coast a ways where there is good SAM coverage.

As to who can best defend a nation.  I like being defended by a A. large.  B. well organized, C. modern military, that also happens to be D. all volunteer.  It frees me up from having to carry a rifle.
As to large.  Every able bodied man?
As to well organized.  Corporations are well organized, or at least as well organized as any government agency.
As to modern.  The army regularly "borrows" from civilian tech and methodologies when they need to cover a new angle.  The only reason, I believe, the same isn't true of weapons is the government hasn't let us actually "Play with" weapons outside their careful control for a rather long time.  Guns should be potentially as complex as modern cars.  As it is, we get machining improvements and materials improvements.  Both which are shared with non-weapons.
In absence of government SUPPRESSION of civilian weapons research, the average shooters personal arsenal would be as sophisticated, or more so, than a professional infantry soldiers'.

The points _I_ see are interoperability of equipment.  My neighbor uses 12ga, and I prefer 20ga.  My sidearm is 9mm, but my coworker swears by .40ca.
If any of us runs out of ammo, we aren't borrowing from the other.
The SOLUTION would be as simple.  Join a militia, and to be a member in good standing you'd have to have a gun in a certain caliber, possibly even of a certain manufacture.  The militia voted on this, (probably voted in favor of the elected, or acclaim appointed, armorers' recommendation rather than hashing it out themselves,) about the same time they voted on emergency chain of command.  Hey.  It's a free country.  You can always quit if you don't like the decisions the captain makes in the field.  Unless there's widespread agreement of his ineptitude, though, you can write off visiting any bar, or restaurant, or store, in town from here on out.  They think you decided to quit because it was getting tough.

And before you think THIS is unlikely.  I have been to two auctions where a property owner made the prospective buyers mad.
One the auctioneer caught the consignee bidding on his own tractor, invalidated the current bid and started over.  Then the bidding started much lower than it had been, at what the consignee stated as the minimum he could accept, and NO ONE bought that late model John Deere.
(The lowest it started at the second time was a fraction of what other, older, tractors sold for that same day.  People just weren't willing to buy that tractor after the owner pulled what he did.)
Individuals will hurt their own pocketbooks in order to teach someone else a lesson in fair play.  No one has to coerce them.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 20, 2010, 07:14:57 pm
Quote
I continue to invite you all to actually expend some brain cycles to figure out how you would solve the "problems" you pose.

If I thought AnCap ideas would work, I would be an AnCap. I don't. I have expended considerable brain power on the problem, and my conclusion has been that the solution is a government of some kind -- even if it's a government that exists only to provide for the common defense and enforce contracts. Hence why I'm asking *other people*.

Quote
Now, let's look at that SAM site.  I'm convinced your site gives the best possible coverage against incoming attacks.  Well, it would, you chose a very nice piece of oceanfront property that, due to geography manages to stay dry, (cliffside overlooking the ocean.)
Now, for whatever reason, you've place a, in my opinion, rather high value on that piece of property, but then again, the SAM site wouldn't be protecting you, would it?  Once I bought you out, you'd be without property and possibly moving on.
Well, I prefer your spot, but your neighbor does have a suitable site, and if he won't sell, your other neighbor plus a small patch just north collectively provide good coverage.  After that, I tell everyone their city is in danger, I'm throwing up my hands and leaving.  The property values of that place just went down because it can't be reasonably defended.  You now have a bunch of people who won't talk to you.  Fewer than you did, because quite a few decided they'd rather live down the coast a ways where there is good SAM coverage.

You have not addressed the problem, but I think that's because I framed it badly, let me restate. Right now, people let the state coerce them and take their land. They object, but overall, there's no revolt  brewing against the government even though the government reserves the right to kill you at any time. Right now, if the military seizes your land by force to build a SAM site, people might grumble, but overall, your neighbors will probably tell you to take the money the government is giving you and move on, because it's not worth their time and they do feel safer with the base around. Plus, soldiers will spend money at their businesses.

If the Private military of this AnCap society decides that, for whatever reason, they don't want to deal with your shit, and you can either take the money or they'll take the land and not give you a cent, what's to stop them from con'ing your neighbors in a simliar way to how the government has them con'ed now.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on March 20, 2010, 08:36:42 pm
I challenge the belief that a libertarian militia can't repel an army. Consider Afghanistan and Iraq. On the one side, a huge, well-funded socialist army. On the other, a much smaller, less well-funded organization - which is doing serious damage in spite of its much lower levels of funding.

Let's do some extrapolation. Assume the resources of a wealthy society. Assume zero taxation. Assume a voluntary structure comparable to that of Switzerland. ( Yes, they have a government. Extrapolate; that's what your brain is supposed to be useful for. )

Some people in such a society will have considerable wealth - billions of today's dollars. They'll have a vested interest not only in protecting their own homes, but their customers, who are widely distributed. They'll be able to afford serious hardware - up to and including fighter jets, tanks, etc. In America's past, there were hundreds of privately-owned warships; extrapolate to privately-owned tanks and fighter aircraft and SAM batteries.

The mistake made by most people who don't understand AnCap is that life is going to be a war of all-against-all; that nobody would be interested in cooperating to achieve common ends. That's total nonsense; people choose to cooperate every day, without being mandated to do so by the government. To conflate cooperation with coercion is to be totally confused.

What happens when an ammo supplier feels the price is too low? He finds another buyer or holds on to his stock. If a buyer feels the price is too high, he finds another supplier, or does without. Markets do a much better job of delivering better goods at better prices than any government substitutes. Really, look over the military budget and tell us with a straight face that the government gets the best price and only buys what is needed. If you can do that without a serious ROFLMAO fit, you're made of sterner stuff than I am. During Desert Storm, some families were buying GPS units online and shipping them to their sons in Iraq.

Years ago, I heard of a war which was actually funded by anonymous donations. I'll try to google up a pointer. Donations arrived when they were needed. This is not surprising; when your life is stake, you do what needs to be done.


Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Sean Roach on March 20, 2010, 08:45:43 pm
The lack of a deliberately defanged populous, who believes in the automatic authority of the state.

Prior to 9/11, I was reading one of the "Worst Case Scenario" books.  It's suggestion for a skyjacking?  Sit tight, be quiet, and don't agitate.  If you need to use the restroom, hold it.  The loudest hostage will be the one killed as an example to others and the outside world.
I don't think anyone thinks that now.  Having 3 airplanes flown into landmarks, because the people onboard sat tight, were quiet, and didn't agitate, while the fourth was forced down in Pennsylvania because the passengers did has changed a lot of behavior.  Now if you show signs of instability on an airplane, you better hope your trachea is still intact when the plane lands.

Of course, if the individual victims had been allowed to bring tools for their own defense in the first place, this wouldn't have come up.  That they weren't and the bad guys won, with token weapons, now we're not allowed to carry 3" pocketknives on flights.

Much of government is there to sell you on a behavior structure that is best for society as a whole, or frequently the security of government or government positions, not necessarily what is best for you as an individual.  This is why I think government should be forbidden from publishing anything, as they frequently publish or commission works, (including studies,) that are designed to support their position, regardless of what may be the truth.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 21, 2010, 01:32:40 am
Quote
I challenge the belief that a libertarian militia can't repel an army. Consider Afghanistan and Iraq. On the one side, a huge, well-funded socialist army. On the other, a much smaller, less well-funded organization - which is doing serious damage in spite of its much lower levels of funding.

Addressed in the opening post. This is assuming that the society in question doesn't want to be conquered in the first place, rather than being happy with eventually driving an invader out.

Quote
Let's do some extrapolation. Assume the resources of a wealthy society. Assume zero taxation. Assume a voluntary structure comparable to that of Switzerland. ( Yes, they have a government. Extrapolate; that's what your brain is supposed to be useful for. )

Some people in such a society will have considerable wealth - billions of today's dollars. They'll have a vested interest not only in protecting their own homes, but their customers, who are widely distributed. They'll be able to afford serious hardware - up to and including fighter jets, tanks, etc. In America's past, there were hundreds of privately-owned warships; extrapolate to privately-owned tanks and fighter aircraft and SAM batteries.

The mistake made by most people who don't understand AnCap is that life is going to be a war of all-against-all; that nobody would be interested in cooperating to achieve common ends. That's total nonsense; people choose to cooperate every day, without being mandated to do so by the government. To conflate cooperation with coercion is to be totally confused.

What happens when an ammo supplier feels the price is too low? He finds another buyer or holds on to his stock. If a buyer feels the price is too high, he finds another supplier, or does without. Markets do a much better job of delivering better goods at better prices than any government substitutes. Really, look over the military budget and tell us with a straight face that the government gets the best price and only buys what is needed. If you can do that without a serious ROFLMAO fit, you're made of sterner stuff than I am. During Desert Storm, some families were buying GPS units online and shipping them to their sons in Iraq.

Let me put this another way: People are stupid, and occasionally jerks.

"X is not in this persons rational self interest." Only means *most* people in that position won't do it. Some people are just having a bad day, or hate your guts, or maybe they just somehow rose to a position of power despite being a sociopath, whatever. Yes, probably, the military in this AnCap example could find a site where the owner is just willing to sell. Likewise, the government today can probably find sites where the owners are just willing to sell. They don't because they can't for some unusual reasons, or more likely, juts don't want too and don't care.

In this example, that would be the mercenary leader of this AnCap army just going, "Fuck it! If that dipshit doesn't want to take good money for his crap land, he dosn't have too. Throw him off, it, explain to everyone that his stubbornness put them in danger from the Statists, and tell them that if we have to build it somewhere else, we're jacking up their rates."

It's obviously not a perfect story, but people can be conned or persuaded into believing far more ludicrous things -- and according to AnCap beliefs, are conned into that on a daily basis. You can't say "No one would ever believe that!" because people believe and put up with worse right now. It seems like an AnCap area with a private military could only work if the vast majority of the people in it fervently belief in AnCap ideals and are willing to make sacrifices to keep it working.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 21, 2010, 01:47:24 am
Quote
Much of government is there to sell you on a behavior structure that is best for society as a whole, or frequently the security of government or government positions, not necessarily what is best for you as an individual.  This is why I think government should be forbidden from publishing anything, as they frequently publish or commission works, (including studies,) that are designed to support their position, regardless of what may be the truth.

Because Tobacco companies *never* published rigged studies showing that cigarettes were actually healthy for you.  ::)

That's really your argument? Really? "The government tries to push stuff on you that isn't good for you?" Do you know who else does that? Corporations, large business, small business, everyone on earth trying to sell you something, churches (if you're an atheist), atheists (if you're religious), private interest groups, foreign nations, political parties and beauty contests.

Do we ban all of them? Cause that could get extensive.

Title: Negotiating Tactics and/or the "Tommy" worldview.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 21, 2010, 07:27:03 am
Imagine that a hypothetical enemy has launched a surprise attack on your AnCap nation. In particular, there happens to be a rapidly approaching with a previously unsuspected column of tanks. You, being the head of your local militia, have three choices:

1) Ruin your neighbor's property without their permission by laying a minefield to stop and/or slow the armor. Given that you are flagrantly violating his property rights, you are also putting your supply line at risk.

2) Die in place, killing a few bad guys, but only holding them up for a few minutes.

3) Withdraw, and let the bad guys have the neighborhood.

What are you going to do?

A lot of people would pick option #3, and I can't blame them. The residents who are killed or enslaved when the bad guy's tanks roll through die because of one jerk's obstinacy. Who can blame the militia for not wanting to die for zero gain?

I would probably pick Option #1, with one caveat. I would shoot that idiot neighbor before they went whining to anybody in the rear, and putting my supply line at risk. Am I a crazy, murdering madman? Or am I dealing realistically with the fog of war? Your suppliers, hearing this poor man's story (told with subtle, self-serving manipulations added, of course,) might decide not to sell you any mines until you paid him off and vowed never to do such a thing again. Will you have the time to set them straight and fight a war while you do it?  Can you afford to do anything other than shooting an objector, given the possibility of having your supply line cut by your own side, rather than enemy action?

Even worse, what if your enemy seeds agents in the rear of the lines to spread lies about the behavior of front-line units, and suppliers start cutting-off supplies or eating up the valuable time of militia commanders and troops with investigations into fake incidents that took place on territory no longer held by your side?

Stubborn idiots and enemy agents are just two sources of difficulties for armed forces trying to defend AnCap's territories. Arms dealers in a time of war pretty-much define "good negotiating position." People who are in a good negotiating position will tend to take advantage of it in any way they can. Sudden suspicious "production delays" that require a lot of cash to fix are a great way to get away with holding militia units over a barrel without being held accountable by the community at-large. Most of the people with the incentive to investigate and discover the truth are probably either a) too busy getting shot at to do so or b) getting a cut of the barrel-bucks. A government-sponsored armed force, with an Inspector-General's office, subpoena and enforcement power can give these people the cigarette, blindfold, and 7.62mm reward they deserve. A militia unit can only appeal to the Board of Directors' sense of patriotism. Cash can buy a lot of "Citizen of the World"-style feelings.

A Third Way might be to adopt a system similar to that discussed in the Roswell, Texas story available on this website. A VERY limited government that could do things like indemnify militia units against property damage claims, require arms dealers sell at agreed-upon prices, etc. could mitigate a lot of the potential damage to the war effort from idiots, saboteurs and shifty arms dealers.
Title: Re: Negotiating Tactics and/or the "Tommy" worldview.
Post by: SandySandfort on March 21, 2010, 02:04:23 pm
Imagine that a hypothetical enemy has launched a surprise attack on your AnCap nation. In particular, there happens to be a rapidly approaching with a previously unsuspected column of tanks. You, being the head of your local militia, have three choices:

1) Ruin your neighbor's property without their permission by laying a minefield to stop and/or slow the armor. Given that you are flagrantly violating his property rights, you are also putting your supply line at risk.

2) Die in place, killing a few bad guys, but only holding them up for a few minutes.

3) Withdraw, and let the bad guys have the neighborhood.

Option #1 is addressed in the common law under the doctrine of "necessity." Of course, you are liable for any damage you cause. I see no difference in a stateless society.

If you shoot the owner, because you are afraid he will exercise free speech, you are a murderer not matter what you think he might say. He has a right to live unless he initiates force. He has a right to speak, whether you like it or not.

You may call yourself anything you want. However, calling yourself Heinlein Libertarian, is a disgraceful lie and an insult to a great man. So, are you a troll, an agent provocateur or just clueless? Your beliefs are an anathema to everything EFT stands for.  What the hell are you doing here?

I am an agorist/libertarian and I believe in individual freedom and the ZAP/NAP. I find your rationalization for murder, pathetic, immoral and truly offensive. I will no longer respond to your flame baiting. Live in darkness.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 21, 2010, 03:55:00 pm
Quote
Option #1 is addressed in the common law under the doctrine of "necessity." Of course, you are liable for any damage you cause. I see no difference in a stateless society.

I consider the placement of a SAM battery on his property a "necessity" to prevent the loss of life. I build one there, without his approval and pay damages in the form of a fair market price for the land and any buildings I destroyed.

This is exactly the same as how Imminent Domain presently works.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Sean Roach on March 21, 2010, 06:36:03 pm
Who says?  Where do you draw the line?
Let's say I come to you and inform you I need your land for a new military facility.  I take your store, by force, paying you what _I_ decide it's worth, and turn it into a PX, which I then hand over to a monopoly contractor.  I take your farm, again by force, and turn it into an extra 9 holes for the officers club golf course.  Naturally, your farm is worth far less than a golf course for Our Fine Officers.  (I had a co-worker who actually lost her farm for this very reason.)

WHERE do you draw the line?  Better to draw it right at the edge of your nose.

I, too, noticed the disconnect in the name.  I'm thinking agent provocateur.  I guess we should count ourselves successful that outsiders consider us enough of a threat to seed our discussions with naysayers.  I suppose next we'll get a few trying to convince us to buy into a gun laundering scheme.  All the better to take us down.

And as to government and misleading studies.  The government funds those studies, papers, and articles, used to "prove" and promote government positions, on the taxes of the very people they are attempting to dupe.  They steal from us in order to lie to us.  I consider it a violation of the 1st amendment in principal, if not in fact.  The 1st amendment barred the government from supporting a church as it protected the individuals right to free speech.  It should have barred the government from editorializing in the same breath.
Title: You're right. I'm not an AnCap fan.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 22, 2010, 01:23:22 am

I am, however, not a fan of government involvement in our lives. In general, I think that the only time government action is legitimate is when an individual is being deprived of their rights without their express or implied informed consent.

Under this system:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Murder and rape deprive individuals of their rights to their own body. Physician-assisted suicide and prostitution are legal because they both involve consent.
-The FDA could legitimately inspect food and drug manufacturers to ensure that their products contain what they say, and are not being packed with rat feces or sugar pills. They could not legitimately tell you what food or drugs you are allowed to ingest.
-Welfare, or depriving one person of their property to give it to another who has no claim on it, would be illegal. Charity is perfectly acceptable.
-Air and water pollution are legitimate areas for the government to intervene. So long as that pollution can be demonstrated to actually be harmful and the government only sets safe levels, rather than the means by which it is reduced to those levels.
-Quarantine and vaccination are also legitimate governmental functions. In times of widespread disease, some force is needed to keep those who are infected away from others who are not. Unvaccinated people put others at risk of disease. Spreading disease may not be intentional murder, but it is certainly reckless indifference.
-Police forces are a legitimate expenditure. Somebody who violates the rights of another by violence should be arrested and jailed for it, after forcing them to make recompense to whatever degree possible to their victims.
-Defense of the nation against foreign invasion is the primary responsibility of any government, and perfectly legitimate.

Why this system, rather than AnCap? Much of my difficulty with AnCap comes from my difficulty with the concept of shunning. I just don't think it will work. Why not?

-Will every business owner universally agree that what was done was shunable? If not, what is the point? Will shopkeepers start shunning other shopkeepers over differences in opinion on a shun/no shun argument?
-Will family members shun other family members? If not, how do you actually shun those responsible? If you shun entire family units, are you willing to starve kids for a parent's mistake?
-Will people deny food to a shunned child? If not, how do we stop kids from robbing, raping and murdering all they want? Criminals do not commit crimes expecting to be caught, so penalties frequently do not deter them.
-Dumb or crazy people will not be deterred by the threat of shunning, since they will not be able to truly understand the scope of the penalty or the reasons for it.
-People who are being shunned cannot be shunned twice, so why obey any rules? Go ahead and shoot the guy who runs the hot dog cart for a hot dog, what are people going to do about it?
-Shunned people will tend to organize themselves for mutual assistance and increased firepower. These groups could eventually become powerful enough to threaten the AnCap system itself, as they have in every other nation with an anarchical power vacuum in the past.
-The AnCap equivalent of smugglers will appear to sell goods to the shunned.

Finally, people are irrational and reckless. Take the recent scare over a Peter Pan plant filled to the brim with rat droppings and other unsanitary conditions. This was irrational and reckless on the part of everybody from the workers to the CEO. However, this factory operated like this for quite some time before it was discovered. This, despite the inevitable crippling lawsuits that would result from it. Inspections and periodic testing to verify purity on drugs are perfectly legitimate if only because there are so many stupid people out there who will try to get away with this nonsense, and endanger the lives of their fellow human beings in the process.

So, to sum it all up, why do I call myself Heinlein Libertarian? I believe in a strong national defense, like RAH. I believe that some government is necessary, but that it should be strictly limited. There is nothing inconsistent with my name, or my philosophy.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 22, 2010, 01:49:12 pm
Quote
Who says?  Where do you draw the line?
Let's say I come to you and inform you I need your land for a new military facility.  I take your store, by force, paying you what _I_ decide it's worth, and turn it into a PX, which I then hand over to a monopoly contractor.  I take your farm, again by force, and turn it into an extra 9 holes for the officers club golf course.  Naturally, your farm is worth far less than a golf course for Our Fine Officers.  (I had a co-worker who actually lost her farm for this very reason.)

WHERE do you draw the line?  Better to draw it right at the edge of your nose.

Yes, that's exactly my point.

In an AnCap society, the ultimate measure of right and wrong is economic force. If a lot of people think that what the military is doing is wrong, to the point that they can sanction them, refuse to pay them, etc, your land will be safe. But if the majority thinks that they like the new SAM battery and you should have sold when you had the chance, you alone do not have the economic power or force of arms to reverse the decision.

This means that it's possible for a military force in an AnCap society to violate people's rights up and down the board, as long as they can paint them as "the bad guys" in the minds of enough of the people.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 22, 2010, 01:50:14 pm
Quote
And as to government and misleading studies.  The government funds those studies, papers, and articles, used to "prove" and promote government positions, on the taxes of the very people they are attempting to dupe.  They steal from us in order to lie to us.  I consider it a violation of the 1st amendment in principal, if not in fact.  The 1st amendment barred the government from supporting a church as it protected the individuals right to free speech.  It should have barred the government from editorializing in the same breath.

Yes? And? A cigarette company that tells me my smokes are making me healthy is taking my money and using it to lie to me and give me lung cancer.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 22, 2010, 03:36:06 pm
Looks like one more debate getting out of and  ::)

Sure I do concede a point that the escape from Terra handling of the matter of war was somewhat simplistic, weak or I just happen to love war movies to much  ;D The Terran Navy was so incompetent that I really couldn't stop laughing  ;D
 but we can concede that at least the Soviet Army under Stalin order was this incompetent  ;D
So lets go back to the terrible question of how an AnCap society defends itself  against a well organized and led army, so lets check our premise:

A - The target is a prosperous AnCap society with :
- A lot of self-defense weapons (handguns, rifles, and some more exotic calibers for gun nuts)
- Some sort of Private security agency with capacity ranging from mere policing operations to paramilitar capacities, like when protecting very valuable assets. (think a lot of competing Black Water roaming around)
- A lot of industries, including weaponery, which can produce advanced combat system for a demanding clientelle.

B- Aggressor is a national army with the ambition to conquer the AnCap society because its economic value

So lets discard what will likely NOT happen:

1- Surprise attack : ''Amateurs look strategy, professional logistic'' such an attack require some level of logistical planning, which mean that there is a chance that a society of free man , especially if some of them have some big assets on the line, may eventually discover the attack in time
2- One bullet supplier dilenma : Uberly impossible, since if it is a society of free man, and no one is bared of being a gun nut, there would be at least dozens of ammunition manufacturers and maybe thousands of redistributors with HUGE stocks, so not one will likely be in the position of the ''mighty bullet provider'' ;D
Also virtually every owner may well have a lot at home ... after all recreational shooting requires a lot of bullets. Also the security agencies are likely to have a lot of ammunitions, so even if there is NO supplies of ammunitions, there is a almost guaranty ratio of 200 bullets or 20 magazine per rifle owner ;)

Sure you need that almost all people have strong feelings about an AnCap society, but when people who don't use to pay taxes are under the thumbs of an army who see them has milk cow ... they might fight to defend their property ;)

I'm not saying that the invasion will fail, but that at least it won't be such an easy deal, since if you have a company who want to make money out providing a SAM humbrella to its customers, I doubt your refusal to provide them you piece of land would be a problem business wise

If you want to picture this correctly, stop thinking that the AnCap army will be something like a national army, but more like a market were the product is security and defense... now imagine the guy you pay 5000$ per month telling you that you home who bombed because they couldn't find a place to install the same battery ... subsitute SAM battery by any other service(food, computer) and you will easily see the solution
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 22, 2010, 05:25:19 pm
Quote
If you want to picture this correctly, stop thinking that the AnCap army will be something like a national army, but more like a market were the product is security and defense... now imagine the guy you pay 5000$ per month telling you that you home who bombed because they couldn't find a place to install the same battery ... subsitute SAM battery by any other service(food, computer) and you will easily see the solution

Two problems with that:
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Zilabus on March 22, 2010, 08:00:47 pm
Alright, a response to sams two main points.

1.) I'm not a hundred percent sure what you're first point is, but I think the just of it is that there is a chance that a group of free men could be aware of foriegn threats. This is true, but highly unlikely. It takes years of work and money to find a reliable information source in a foriegn government. While you have a chance of stumbling onto the enemy preparing to attack, if they are actively trying to work in secret, it's about the same as you winning the lottery.

2.) Not quite so impossible at all. When we look at free markets, we see that larger corp. actively work to grow larger and fight off any competition. If the biggest supplier of arms is some company called Beyer-munition, they aren't going to like the 20 little guys cutting into their profits. They'll buy them out, pay to have them shut down, close of the modes of transport Beyer-munition uses to them, or use any other manner of technique used to beat out competition. The warehouses full of munitions and redistributers with their trucks loaded to the brim would have no reason to keep so fully stocked, especially in wartime. Scarcity means you can sell less for more. And finally, even if all of the fighters in the area had 200 bullets, or approx. 20 magazines, that isn't really enough to sustain combat for a long period of time. Let's look at a current example to see how effective 200 rounds is. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-508299.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-508299.html) You may say such a study is unreliable, but even if it is, you're looking at 1250 times 20 magazines. Cut it in half, or even quarter it, to make sure it's the best estimate possible, and you still have a pretty damn large gap.
Title: One ammunition supplier?
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 23, 2010, 12:08:05 am
Under normal circumstances, being stuck with one ammunition supplier is improbable. In wartime, it becomes a real possibility.

1) Not Primary, but definitely Secondary Targets: If there is a war, munitions plants are going to be targets that are very high on the enemy's list. Not as high as SAM sites, artillery parks or supply dumps, perhaps, but waaaaay up there. . Sometime after the cliff side SAM sites are gone, somebody will do everything they can to knock these puppies out and watch the war effort grind to a halt.

2) Location, Location, Location: Ammunition is only useful if there is some reasonable and steady method of getting it to where it is needed and in the quantity needed. If you need to use ships, trains, bridges, any major means of transportation short of the mule to get it where it is going, you are going to have problems. Transportation systems fall right behind ammunition factories on the "bomb this now" scale. If one factory is close enough to get the ammo where it is going, and another is not, you are going to have to deal with the closer factory.

3) How Many Massive Factories? Modern armies use up a LOT of ammunition. You need a factory capable of supplying ammunition in the right calibers, and in the right quantity. Factories require a lot of cash and time to build, and so they tend to be centralized. They require a lot of heavy, expensive and scarce machinery to produce in any sort of quantity. They also require trained people to work the machines. There are not likely to be a large number of usefully-sized munitions factories in any given nation. Even the ones that do exist are probably going to have to retool to meet the new need for military calibers, at the same time as they run three shifts.

Smaller manufacturers could make up some of the difference, but coordinating transport to the will be a nightmare. Imagine a family reunion where the whole clan decides to drive sixteen hours to the same theme park. One person has a (mostly) incomplete and partially imaginary map. Nobody has a cellphone to coordinate. All driving will be done by night (maybe your family is totally albino, I can't explain why this would occur.) Now, imagine that bombs are dropping, people are dying, and the roads have massive craters in them. Try keeping track of that for a day, you will be daunted. Try keeping track of that for a month, and you will be both hopelessly insane and a qualified S4 (supply/logistics officer.)

4) Time. It takes time to negotiate a new contract with a supplier. You have to make contact, review capabilities, bargain, and the supplier will have to retool as appropriate and arrange transportation. If you are under heavy attack, this is time you probably don't have. Therefore, you may be forced to deal with one supplier by the constraints of time.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on March 23, 2010, 12:10:12 am
What makes you think that collecting intelligence is something that can be done only by governments? How do you think entrepreneurs become successful, if not by collecting information?

Furthermore, what government agency can assure 100% loyalty? There's always a fifth column, somebody who thinks that the government policies are wrong, somebody who will do what he can to stop them, often for quite patriotic reasons.

If you think AnCap is a bunch of isolated amateurs, think again. It will involve highly professional organizations, and will lack the rigid top-down disease which infects socialist institutions such as the U.S. military.

You worry about AnCap organizations beating you up. Have you somehow failed to notice the many private security agencies which already exist in America? I saw a Brinks truck picking up some cash from a convenience store the other day. I got to thinking, if the insane theories about self-destructive AnCap were true, then we'd surely have efforts by Brinks to muscle in on the business of other security firms. There'd be shootouts all over the place.

Why not? Well, oddly enough, warfare is not a very economical business model. That's why private security agencies do little of it, and governments do a lot of it. There are actually more private security agents in America than there are government police forces. It is the government, however, which is frequently in the news for brutality, false arrests, SWAT raids on the wrong address, accidental or possibly unjustified shootings, and so forth. I'm not sure why you prefer the government model, given the negative evidence. Perhaps you're simply oblivious to the number of private security agents who quietly get their jobs done without a lot of murder and mayhem - to say nothing of the 70 million armed Americans who are even less conspicuous.




Title: Charging people for the damage they do to property they are defending?
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 23, 2010, 12:49:24 am
Holding soldiers liable for damage they inflict on the property of others is insane and unworkable in a time of war.

Consider carpet cleaning costs. Every apartment in which I have lived has required that I shampoo the carpet when i move out. This generally costs about $50. Soldiers are going to be running around on ground covered in a lot of nasty stuff. Dirt, dust, mud, blood, less pleasant bodily excretions, bits of their fellow soldiers, spoiled food, shrapnel, splinters, fuel, radioactive/chemical weapons residue, etc. This stuff will be tracked on carpets in any building the soldiers enter. If they have to fight from inside that building, you will have red-hot shell casings landing all over the carpet, and quite possibly starting fires. Most soldiers are careful to avoid or mitigate fire traps like carpet, but in a hasty defense it might not be possible to account for everything. In all likelihood, every carpet these soldiers come in to contact with while conducting a defensive action is going to have to be replaced or very thoroughly cleaned. This will add-up very fast, resulting in a situation where it is financially suicidal to defend anything.

Of course, you could simply let the enemy take the area, then recapture it, and blame the enemy for the damage. This will get a lot of people killed, and possibly a lot of people taken hostage by the enemy, but it will reduce your financial liability.

How do you determine who is responsible for what damage? CSI makes figuring out what bullets went where and came from what gun look easy, but how do you do that in an urban war zone? What if the AnCap country and the enemy use the same caliber bullet, or both sides are capturing and using the other sides' weapons? How can you tell who threw which grenade? Whose shell caused the shrapnel hole in your wall? Figuring out who is liable for what damage would require expenses far beyond the value of whatever property is destroyed, and would likely be impossible.

There is also the time it takes to negotiate the purchase of a home/business/apartment building with the owner before it is used in a defensive action. Realistically, there is not going to be any negotiation, and necessity will be the justification for every confiscation. What if there are disagreements down the line about the necessity of seizing a particular building? Are you going to get your supplies cut-off because you might, in the heat of battle, have seized a building that was not 100% necessary to the defense?

Finally, are you really going to charge the people who protected your property from being stolen by the enemy? After all, if the soldier wasn't there, you would not have your property at all. You would also probably be enslaved by whoever just invaded you. How do you calculate gratitude?

Quite frankly, if you tried to charge them, I doubt you would have very many soldiers after a day or so. Most of them would get tired of being asked to pay people whose homes they just defended with their lives.
Title: Shooting people for speech.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 23, 2010, 01:32:34 am
How far does free speech extend in a war zone?

Is it legitimate to shoot a reporter who reports on troop movements and damage in such a way that they are providing free intel and bomb damage assessments to the enemy? I would argue that it is perfectly legitimate to shoot them.  Providing such information qualifies as fighting for the enemy without wearing a uniform. They are, in other words, spies.

Is it legitimate to shoot somebody who is lying about the actions of your unit in an effort to get your unit shunned by their suppliers? Is there a moral or practical difference between lying to get you shunned and bombing your supply lines?  Once again, this qualifies as an active attempt to hamstring the defense of the nation and is no different from fighting for the other side. At the very least, intentional efforts at deception qualify as attempted sabotage. Shooting saboteurs is legally and morally acceptable in my book.

Finally, we return to the blabber. This is the person I suggested could or should be shot.

The Blabber does not have ill intent. He is trying to protect his property rights, and objects very strongly to your use of his property for purposes of defense. He has not shot at you or your troops. He has not threatened you. He does intend to head downtown and raise some trouble about his property, but he does not intend to invent stories, merely to tell them his own way. His rabble-rousing could convince enough people that your unit did something wrong that deserves shunning.

Modern armies require vast amounts of fuel, ammo, spare parts, food, water, trained mechanics, etc. to continue operating, A modern army without resupply will grind to a halt in a few hours. If you are being pursued by an assaulting force, this will very rapidly result in your unit grinding to a halt and being overrun. Tanks without fuel or spares are very expensive, very explosive fixed artillery pieces. Guns without bullets are clubs.

One of the truisms of an assault is that most armies will not take prisoners unless people surrender in significant numbers and offer no defense. After all, the point is to punch a hole in the defenses, and run wild in the rear area. There is not time to deal with prisoners when speed is the key to your success. Thus, if you are being assaulted and the enemy is succeeding, your only real option is to fight and die or run away. If you do not have the fuel to move your tanks and artillery, you have just handed the enemy some shiny new equipment that they can turn on you with a shipment of bullets or a little diesel. Your men are going to have to go in to a fighting withdraw, one of the most difficult, dangerous and tiring movements for any army to pull off. Also, impossible to pull off without bullets.

Losing your supply line means you are, in all likelihood, dead. The Blabber is putting your life, and the lives of all of the men and women under your command in serious jeopardy by trying to get you shunned. Yes, I would shoot him to preserve those lives. I view it as morally identical to shooting a plague carrier who does not know they are infected to prevent them from walking in to a supermarket. The Blabber, like a lot of civilians, is probably not thinking of the consequences for you of his actions. Lack of knowledge and intent to do harm is irrelevant to his impact. He is just as dangerous to you as if he intended to bomb a bridge to stop your resupply.

I'd also suggest that you ask yourself how much time you think a busy commander in the middle of combat has to deal with questions/complaints from behind the line? If some Blabber heads back and comes close to convincing people that you should be shunned, how much manpower can you devote to spreading the truth about your actions? How long will it take to gather the information you need about each incident, and will you be able to do so given the fact that the people involved might be dead, POW's or MIA? Given that most TV and radio stations are probably rubble, and the radio frequencies are probably being jammed, how do you communicate in a timely manner?

War creates a few situations where murder is justified. Civilians never leave until they can hear the enemy's guns. This has been true in every war since we left the trees and decided that walking on two legs might be a good career move. This tends to create problems for military units moving in to the city to defend it. When there are massive columns of refugees trying to flee a city by any means possible, it tends to clog the roads. Most armies will permit firing on civilians under these circumstances if they refuse to make way in reasonable time. Given that they have just been shelled or shot at by the enemy, a lot of civilians are too frightened to do anything but run. Brutal? Yes. Unfortunate? Yes. Effective? Extremely. It only takes doing this once or twice, and from then on, civvies will move when asked. Is it justified? Well, those refugees will pretty rapidly become slaves and/or be captured or killed by the enemy if you don't get to the front to defend the town. Kill five, and you have just saved five thousand.

Finally, ask yourself this: If you and your unit are being shunned because of actual/perceived conduct, what is your incentive to keep fighting? What is your incentive to stay loyal to your country? Why not join the other side? Most people who are willing to fight for AnCap in the first place are not going to just switch sides, but being shunned for doing something you perceived as necessary provides a powerful incentive for people to turn traitor. 
Title: A note about quantities of munitions.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 23, 2010, 02:03:08 am
Sam-

The quantities of munitions you find in a home are not going to do it. First, there is the compatibility problem. Calibers need to match, which is not particularly likely. Military weapons are designed for different purposes from civilian hunting rifles. Furthermore, home defense does not require an assault rifle. Shotguns are going to be a lot more popular. Personal defense means pistols that you can wear with you to work and the store comfortably. In other words, not likely to be a .45.

Second the munitions are probably the wrong type. Even in an AnCap world, I'm not going to have tank or artillery ammunition in my basement. Same goes for heavy machine guns.

Third, the quantities of ammunition you need to fight a battle are HUGE. In WWII, it was estimated that it took about a ton of munitions to kill one enemy soldier. Today, it's a little less thanks to better intelligence and more accurate munitions.

This may seem like quite a bit, but human beings are very tough to kill when they have any sort of cover or protective gear. World War I taught us that you can shell trenches for a full week using everything from phosgene to HE and not kill any more that 20% of the defenders.

Moreover, most firing is done simply to keep the other guy's head down or keep them away from an area. Vast quantities or artillery are dropped on targets like roads, to prevent reinforcement. Mines are generally emplaced so that people will avoid the minefields, rather than step on them.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: dough560 on March 23, 2010, 09:35:41 am
To the Heinlein Wanta Be.  I really suggest you read the "American Zone".  Pay attention to the details, you might learn something if it doesn't offend what you believe to be right and true.

Your argument about the SAM sight is a crock.  I served with such a unit during the 70's.  Granted location can be important, but not as important as you make out.  The owner of the prime location doesn't want to let you use his property?  So what.  Go to pan B.  It's commonly done.  A militia group such as you are describing would have site access, contingency and fire plans worked out long in advance.

An armored advance?  During the early 80's during the test program of the Fast Attack Vehicle (FAV), an MP Battalion at Fort Lewis, WA, wiped out an Armored Brigade using a mix of M19 Grenade Launchers, M2 .50 machine-guns, M249 Squad Automatic Weapons and Tow Missile Launchers.  When I said wiped out, I mean to the last vehicle.  Opposing force kill ratio was in the neighborhood of 90%.  That's why the only place you see a FAV is in the movies.  A $20,000 dune buggy with a few thousand in hardware with some motivated operators, ruined the big boys day and their $1,000,000 tanks and armored personnel carriers.

Since the National Firearms Act passed, small arms development went into slow motion.  All refinements of the AR15/M16 whether in materials, ammunition, modifications, action types, sights and lasers were spurred by civilian competition.  The military resisted these refinements until their noses were rubbed in it to the point it could not be ignored.

Your fantasy about ammunition procurement and consequently transportation, has previously been dealt with.  You didn't like the answer.

Ammunition expenditure in battle.  You have people receiving marksmanship training, trained to the lowest common denominator.  It is normal for a soldier to receive 42 rounds of ammunition for zero and qualification on a 1,000 inch (25 yard) range every three months with the M16.  If he is lucky, one time a year he will shoot reactive targets located between 50 and 300 meters.  Only the marine corps does known distance qualification out to 500 meters.  The more people shoot.  The more ammunition they expend and the more they train in range estimation, the higher their hit ratio.  Improved sighting systems (developed for civilian competition) have increased the hit/kill ratio.  The more they train, the higher their confidence and the higher the likely hood of aimed fire on target instead of spray and pray.  Result, less wasted ammunition.

Compare 168 rounds of ammunition for M16 zero, training and qualification for the average soldier for a year.  A civilian who  may shoot that much or more during a practice session.   Additionally factor in the civilian rifle probably will be built for a heavier caliber, capable of hitting harder and out ranging the military rifle or carbine. People who participate in cowboy, three gun, IPSC, IDPA, NRA ..... can be expected to fire thousands of rounds a year.   It is reasonable to expect the libertarian militia members to participate is similar activities, plus individual and unit training.
 
People who have been there, done that, might talk to you depending on your attitude.  If they do, they'll tell you last thing they want to tangle with is a small, well armed, equipped and motivated team.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 23, 2010, 11:29:20 am


@Heinlein:

I'm not saying that an AnCap society is ''invincible'' ... I'm just saying that they aren't such a ''piece of cake''.
dough560 got it right.

Lets see your point :

1- People will tend to own mostly shootgun for home defense :
Even in the US, where automatic weapons are forbiden to civilians, people tend to upgrade their M16 to full automatic. But lets see, you live in a world NO ONE is bared from owning a FULLY automatic weapons, you going to get stuck with grandpa shootgun  ;D
Because ANY one can get great calibre weapons and purchase kevlar armour, you will basicly see a run for everyone to earn the deadliest most powerful weapons available : Military graded weapons.

2- Not enough ammunition of the proper calibre:
Not really, if you consider ammunition and weapons like any other goods, you will see that the calibre standardization process will be similar like of any other product.
There is no ''compact disc'' supreme authority or Operating system standard. ... markets tend to standardize products, where at least 70% of the customers use standardized products will the other 30% try to use something more exotic. You can see this pattern with operating systems, when Microsoft Windows is practically the standard, with some exotic options for more ''nutty'' guys. why the same selection process don't happen with bullets ?

3- Lack of ''heavy weapons'':
Such a free society will tend to get heavily armed, and the safety agencies, like the ones needed to protect valuable assets (banks vaults, facilities, people) will be the one armed with the biggest calibre and most powerful weapons.
Sure there won't be B-52 or armored tanks, but this is because there a difference of mindset between a national army and private citizen in a militia or security agency:
-army: A almost unlimited supply of cash from the tax payers (the pentagon just override the cost of almost any weapon they develop), so they are not submitted to the pressure of a business, they still love tanks, artillery and fighter jets  ::)
-Private: We have a limited amount of cash and we need to make the most of it  ;) so will not see tanks or aircraft carrier, but instead highly powerful and effective weapon will be preferred to dumber ones

4- Not enough ammunition:

Do you really believe that people will require bullets after the fighting start ? a whole society of free carry weapon will have a LOT of ammunition among suppliers and people.

What an AnCap society won't have is an army with offensive capacities, but will have great defensive capacities.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on March 23, 2010, 05:16:23 pm
In an AnCap society, it will be perfectly legal to own full-auto battle rifles - and this practice will be socially encouraged. The typical homeowner will have such a rifle, and a thousand rounds or more, and will train on a monthly basis, earning prizes and recognition in regular competition. A high percentage will be skilled at 300 and 500 yard distances.  They'll have proper scopes and the skills and equipment to properly allow for range and windage. They'll also have much more powerful equipment, including explosive devices which can destroy tanks. The Afghans are able to improvise such equipment even in their much smaller economy; in an AnCap society, you'll find everything you need to destroy a tank at your local hardware store. Practice sessions will be a rite of passage for teen boys and girls.

Meanwhile, badly-trained conscripts in the hypothetical invading army will be trained to shoot and pray at distances of 100 yards. They will, however, be highly skilled marchers who look splendid in parades.

Recalibrate your thinking. Imagine a world where you and your neighbors trust each other with the most deadly equipment, including the ability to destroy tanks, planes, and ships. Imagine that the ability to project great force is no longer rationed by an inefficient socialist military force, but is abundantly supplied on the free market. 

Think back to the earlier strips of EFT; the tools used to mine asteroids are commonly available - and capable of punching holes in battleships.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: pendothrax on March 23, 2010, 05:42:15 pm
As for the highly motivated small groups, I remember a private company composed of ex special forces operatives that contracted with an african government for action against the rather large rebel army having an effect well outside of their raw numbers and equipment.  that is, until the government was pressured into allowing the U.N. to send a rather large and inneffective peacekeeping force instead.  I think what special forces records are available would show the real life examples of small, motivated and well equiped forces causing havoc with large national army type forces. 

And, i have not seen any examples of extermination warfare on the broad scale, throughout history.  Even Tamarlane only created piles of head from cities that DEFIED him.  He still expected to conquer and recieve tribute money from most cities and areas in his path. 

As for the cost of gas agents, consider an artillery shell version to be a few hundred dollars.  This covers roughly a few hundred yards square at most.  Multiply by the size of a country, even say Lichenstien, and this is a large cost.

Now add in the cost of the equipment required to place the gas on the ground.  Now multiply this cost by maintanance, replacement of lost equipment, and manpower costs for operation of the equipment.  possibly multiply the  amount of gas due to air movements, terrain irregularities, and other factors.

this cost becomes rather extreme rather quickly....
Title: Re: A note about quantities of munitions.
Post by: wdg3rd on March 23, 2010, 08:48:11 pm

Personal defense means pistols that you can wear with you to work and the store comfortably. In other words, not likely to be a .45.


I'm not sure what you're getting at there.  A .45 Colt Commander was my carry gun for three decades, until it started to wear out and misfire too often.  The Sig I carry now is also .45 ACP.  (And no, I don't have a CCP, as those are almost impossible to get in New Jersey, which makes me a criminal -- as a wise man said, I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six).
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Zilabus on March 23, 2010, 09:14:45 pm

What makes you think that collecting intelligence is something that can be done only by governments? How do you think entrepreneurs become successful, if not by collecting information?

Furthermore, what government agency can assure 100% loyalty? There's always a fifth column, somebody who thinks that the government policies are wrong, somebody who will do what he can to stop them, often for quite patriotic reasons.

That argument cuts both ways though. There is  often more of a chance of you not betraying the country you where born and raised in, and have been taught to follow your entire life, then there is of you not betraying the place you work.



4- Not enough ammunition:

Do you really believe that people will require bullets after the fighting start ? a whole society of free carry weapon will have a LOT of ammunition among suppliers and people.

This is not a valid argument. Many studies show that the average usage of ammunition for one soldier for one kill is through the roof. I belive I posted one earlier. I own many firearms, and I enjoy shooting. I don't carry upwards of 100,000 rounds, and most estimates put the number or rounds much higher per kill. Most warehouses and manufacturers, likewise, wouldn't be able to keep up if all of their customers immediately needed such a number, esspecially in more common calibers.

 
In an AnCap society, it will be perfectly legal to own full-auto battle rifles - and this practice will be socially encouraged. The typical homeowner will have such a rifle, and a thousand rounds or more, and will train on a monthly basis, earning prizes and recognition in regular competition. A high percentage will be skilled at 300 and 500 yard distances.  They'll have proper scopes and the skills and equipment to properly allow for range and windage. They'll also have much more powerful equipment, including explosive devices which can destroy tanks. The Afghans are able to improvise such equipment even in their much smaller economy; in an AnCap society, you'll find everything you need to destroy a tank at your local hardware store. Practice sessions will be a rite of passage for teen boys and girls.

Being a good shot doesn't neccesarrily translate into being an effective fighter. The biggest issue facing infantry effectivness today is the average persons HUGE psychological aversion to killing another human being, whatever the situation. The best way to overcome this is by having them submit to the authority of a figure above them, and translate the blame upwards, drilling to the point of muscle memory, and to teach a group to function and work as one unit. Totalitarian armies are very effecient at these different methods. A militia is not nearly as well suited. There are multiple different psycologists who support this. "On Killing" is one such compilation of psycological studies of war.  





Personal defense means pistols that you can wear with you to work and the store comfortably. In other words, not likely to be a .45.


I'm not sure what you're getting at there.  A .45 Colt Commander was my carry gun for three decades, until it started to wear out and misfire too often.  The Sig I carry now is also .45 ACP.  (And no, I don't have a CCP, as those are almost impossible to get in New Jersey, which makes me a criminal -- as a wise man said, I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six).


I agree, you can find comfortably carriable guns in many different calibers. Personally, I carry a small Kahr 9mm, but I know people who carry .38's, .45's, .22 pistols, everything.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Sean Roach on March 24, 2010, 08:36:56 am
I think I'd rather not be on permanent record about openly defying any regulation, no matter how friendly the forum.
It seems like a long term liability to me, even if I didn't intend to ever breed.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 24, 2010, 08:52:07 am
Zillabus, I take the points  you made :)

Sure you need a huge amount of ammunition to keep in pace with the fighting.

But so we can be sure we are talking of the something, permit me to set some context:

Set => The Agorian Free State : A huge urban centre with outlying small borough and hamlets. The city and outlying areas are packed with industrial facilities and the city is packed with Banks and gold faults and stuff of the kind.

Invading army list of priorities and intended targets :
- To destroy : Security agency headquarters, ammunition depots and factories.
- To capture : Bank vaults and industries.

So :
1- I concede that such a society can't keep up with a ''standard'' line battle against the invading army, or at least will face scarcity of ammunition has the battle lengthen in term of quantity and calibre.

2- But if we consider a second scenario.
a- Not all people will automaticly  take arms and will prefer to stay out of problem, so the invading army will likely enter the town without a though fight.
b- Sure most people won't have an incentive to purchase SAM umbrella contracts, only those who have assets that put them on the line of targets : weapons manufacturers, security agencies and other valuable assets protected by them such has airport, port facilities.

The invading army objective is to capture the assets, and the initial stage is quite easy since most of the people don't want to die facing them in open battle, so they enter the city.
They start proactive fighting against the securities agencies defending the assets in a close quarter battle (I know they will decisively win in case of carpet bombing or deliberate artillery mowing down).
Like I said most people will likely in self preservation instinct will avoid fighting, but if you smartly engage in guerilla fighting against the attack army such like selective assassination of officers, sabotage thus  ... forcing them to raid homes to apprehend weapons ... and will trigger a backlash and get themselves into a urban warfare nightmare  ;D

I concede also the point that there is a huge psychological problem with killing human beings, which give an edge to trained troops above militia troopers. In this AnCap society, only member of security agency may be the only with killing ''experience''. But this advantage fades away has the fighting continues.

I do understand that against the Israeli Deference Force(IDF) or the US Army an AnCap society is pretty much doomed. But there is hope when you are confronted against a russian army stile force ... remember the Georgian war ... the Georgie got beaten up but their SAM system denied air superiority to the Russian air force.

But doe we agree that people with valuable assets such like Banks with gold vaults and industries will be the one with High tech, heavy equipment and the best trained troops. Therefore the best scenario of victory is that while trying to defeat the security agencies, the attacking due such a number of collateral damage in such a way that they trigger a urban warfare scenario. This will become worse if the attacking army decide to disarm the population.

I'm becoming inclined that will an AnCap society may have problems with lining up a conventional army, it biggest defence is the capacity to produce a urban guerrilla nightmare scenario for any possible attacker

Correct me if I'm wrong ;D
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: dough560 on March 24, 2010, 09:41:46 am
I wasn't a part of a study,  but trained people to hit and kill what they're shooting at.  Yes, our society has an aversion to killing.  This aversion is instituted by various social forces which teach us to bow down to the government.  These same agencies promote government supremacy and the idea individuals are not capable of controlling their lives.  Many of these agencies even try to prohibit hunting and trapping.  Regardless of the prohibitionist actions, people who hunt are not restrained to the degree of those who do not.  Additionally the more rounds down range, fired at appropriate targets, the easier it is to break the prohibitionist conditioning.  

An armed society has already faced the social responsibility and probable outcome of self defense.  You're talking about people raised and trained with arms.  The result will be superior skill sets similar to those we find in people who go to shooting schools, shoot in competition and/or hunt, instead of attending training camps for basketball, baseball, football, golf, or soccer

Even in our prohibitionist society, people from a competition and/or hunting backgrounds expend fewer rounds than your average soldier for each enemy killed or wounded.  Compared to your regular unit, if you're lucky, one in ten will actually aim at the enemy.  The rest spray and pray.  

There is a major quantitative difference in shooters who expend thousands of rounds a year of aimed fire and a conscript who has enough training to be able to keep his weapon clean and know which end the projectile comes out of.  This difference results in enemy dead.  The motto:  One Round, One Kill; has a very real meaning and real world results.  Priority targets would be Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers, Crew Served Weapons and Equipment. Result:  No Leadership, No Fire Support, No Communications/Food or Equipment.

As for a large invading force being able to immediately wipe out production and infrastructure.  Only in your dreams.

Sams, were talking about an armed society raised in the tradition of personal liberty and responsibility with universal access to high quality arms and equipment.  I suggest you rethink your supposition the general population would sit out an attack due to a supposed perception the invaders won't affect them.  The invaders would not be dealing with our prohibitionist society, but a society where no one bends a knee to anyone.  Any invading force will affect everyone they come in contact with.  Additionally, the invaders would see every armed individual as a threat.  Yes the militias would bear the brunt of the initial attack.  After that, it dealers choice and everyone plays.  The invaders wouldn't be able to tell who the dealer is, since I doubt a central command structure would exist.  It wouldn't be any fun being invaded, but ti would Really, Really SUCK being the invader.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on March 24, 2010, 10:48:40 am
Personal carry - as has been mentioned, some do carry .45 ACP. It's not unheard of for people to actually have more than one weapon; any middle-income person can afford to have a battle rifle, a handgun, a shotgun, and lots of ammo for all three.

Let me pose a hypothetical to those who think socialist states are able to conquer an AnCap society with ease. Would you be willing to invade Switzerland, where just about every adult male has a full-auto battle rifle, and is trained to use it at distances of 300 yards, where there are caches of weapons and ammo - including tanks, fighters, military-grade explosives, etc? Where the official policy is that any message of surrender by the high officials is to be treated as a hoax, and the country is to fight on regardless? Switzerland is the closest model to a modern-day AnCap society that I know of. They have wealth, they have widely-distributed arms, and they have not been invaded for hundreds of years.

Extrapolate - banish taxes. Eliminate the gun-control laws which were imposed by nervous European liberals. Reinvigorate the gun-owning culture. Would you try to conquer such an AnCap society? Why bother? They have a well-known policy of neutrality, you already obtain the benefits of trading with them, which you would lose if you threaten their interests.

Do not underestimate the power of bankers. Trade, commerce, and taxes all depend upon the kindness of bankers. To take a broader look at this problem, mass warfare as practiced by the United Socialist Soviet America would be impossible without faith-based paper currency created out of thin air. When an AnCap society takes hold, the value of that faith-based paper willl decline to zero; the government will no longer be able to pay for fuel, munitions, and other expenses except with actual gold and silver. The military establishment will collapse when people rush to use real money.

We're not far from the end of faith-based paper/digital currency. 
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 24, 2010, 02:04:03 pm
Sams, were talking about an armed society raised in the tradition of personal liberty and responsibility with universal access to high quality arms and equipment.  I suggest you rethink your supposition the general population would sit out an attack due to a supposed perception the invaders won't affect them.  The invaders would not be dealing with our prohibitionist society, but a society where no one bends a knee to anyone.  Any invading force will affect everyone they come in contact with.  Additionally, the invaders would see every armed individual as a threat.  Yes the militias would bear the brunt of the initial attack.  After that, it dealers choice and everyone plays.  The invaders wouldn't be able to tell who the dealer is, since I doubt a central command structure would exist.  It wouldn't be any fun being invaded, but ti would Really, Really SUCK being the invader.

You made my point  ;D

An invader in such situation will try to suppress the obvious threat, who happen to be the guys with biggest assets, such has banks, the security agencies that provide safety to them (in world with hard money and free carry, the dudes guarding the vaults will probably be the thought kids of the block  ;D), weapons factories and depots, infrastructures (bridges, roads, airports and docks).
The problem for the attacker will be that those are exactly the kind of assets which will be protected by the best on the market, including SAM coverage and anti-missile umbrella. this will be especially true for the weapon manufacturer who are at risk each time their weapons cost some else a war.

So the beginning of the invasion will be a selecting air strike against the valuable assets and those who are obviously the best armed : the security agencies. This will likely not a an immediate success, because I'm sure that If people see a pattern, all the independent SAM providers of the territory can can have temporary business cooperation to defeat the attack.

Fase 2 : The General gets pissed off because his air force fail crush the SAM umbrella, this is not new, since even during WWII, the British carpet bombing of German cities bough few concrete results, and the technological tides is increasingly going again aircraft. This is why air strike against a well prepared SAM umbrella can't succed once the enemy is ''aware'' ... the Russian air-force learned it in Georgia.
So our General realize that the only way to do it to rush is troops into the city, so he send in : APC, tanks and infantry to disable SAM's and thus win the battle by gaining air-superiority.

My inicial assumption was that almost every one will avoid fighting because they won't be affected ... but I WAS WRONG ! ;D

Because if the first targets of the air strike are corporations, this means that an attack against them is basically an attack their share holders ... so the proportion of citizens offended by the invasion will higher than I predicted ... somewhere around 40%  ;) Imagine that you wake up in the morning ... the bank were you gold is stored was bombed during the night ... so has the weapon manufacturer were you own stocks and the Exchange markets has plunged since every one know that an enemy force is at the gates and business get an halt (such and AnCap economy would be like a grand scale version of Hong Kong) ... tell me you won't get pissed off  ;D and other thousand of citizens are ALSO pissed off  ;D

So people will try to solve the conflict by the most effective and cheaper course of action, which is not have the whole town getting carpet bombed, instead what will happen will be like selective assassination of the Army command structure, sabotage or supply lines and things of the kind ... and the best part is that if the attacking force decide to enter the city the whole thing become even more easy :D

You can think roadside bomb target convoys, deadly UAV or hitmans selectively destroying the chain of command ... daily sniping of troops on patrols or on guard. while you can't certainly challenge the might of their tanks and artillery , you can make their stay a misery in such a way they will lose their morale if the chain of command and supply collapse

This the main reason Hitler refrained of attack the Swiss, since it would have melt the Wermatch into an unending guerilla nightmare
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 24, 2010, 03:33:23 pm
Quote
Your argument about the SAM sight is a crock.  I served with such a unit during the 70's.  Granted location can be important, but not as important as you make out.  The owner of the prime location doesn't want to let you use his property?  So what.  Go to pan B.  It's commonly done.  A militia group such as you are describing would have site access, contingency and fire plans worked out long in advance.

My argument, not his -- and the SAM site served as an example, you can easily pick any structure. A repair yard, an oil well, a supply depot, a radar post, a listening station, whatever.

Quote
An armored advance?  During the early 80's during the test program of the Fast Attack Vehicle (FAV), an MP Battalion at Fort Lewis, WA, wiped out an Armored Brigade using a mix of M19 Grenade Launchers, M2 .50 machine-guns, M249 Squad Automatic Weapons and Tow Missile Launchers.  When I said wiped out, I mean to the last vehicle.  Opposing force kill ratio was in the neighborhood of 90%.  That's why the only place you see a FAV is in the movies.  A $20,000 dune buggy with a few thousand in hardware with some motivated operators, ruined the big boys day and their $1,000,000 tanks and armored personnel carriers.

Which is why the military has since abandoned tanks and-

Wait no. That didn't happen. Because one test under highly specific circumstances does not eliminate the tactical value of tanks overall, nor does it prove that they're in any way "out of date". Furthermore, if what you're saying is correct, there's no reason the attackers couldn't just use the same loadout, plus having access to a larger air force, better vehicles since they don't have to worry about profitability, etc.

Quote
Your fantasy about ammunition procurement and consequently transportation, has previously been dealt with.  You didn't like the answer.

Because your answer was wrong.

Quote
Ammunition expenditure in battle.  You have people receiving marksmanship training, trained to the lowest common denominator.  It is normal for a soldier to receive 42 rounds of ammunition for zero and qualification on a 1,000 inch (25 yard) range every three months with the M16.  If he is lucky, one time a year he will shoot reactive targets located between 50 and 300 meters.  Only the marine corps does known distance qualification out to 500 meters.  The more people shoot.  The more ammunition they expend and the more they train in range estimation, the higher their hit ratio.  Improved sighting systems (developed for civilian competition) have increased the hit/kill ratio.  The more they train, the higher their confidence and the higher the likely hood of aimed fire on target instead of spray and pray.  Result, less wasted ammunition.

Compare 168 rounds of ammunition for M16 zero, training and qualification for the average soldier for a year.  A civilian who  may shoot that much or more during a practice session.   Additionally factor in the civilian rifle probably will be built for a heavier caliber, capable of hitting harder and out ranging the military rifle or carbine. People who participate in cowboy, three gun, IPSC, IDPA, NRA ..... can be expected to fire thousands of rounds a year.   It is reasonable to expect the libertarian militia members to participate is similar activities, plus individual and unit training.
 
People who have been there, done that, might talk to you depending on your attitude.  If they do, they'll tell you last thing they want to tangle with is a small, well armed, equipped and motivated team.

So let me get this straight. Your plan to deal with an ammo shortage would be to drill your troops more so they shoot less, on the theory that if all your soldiers are crack shots, they'll naturally use less ammo.

That's your plan.

Have an entire army of snipers and pray to the higher powers they don't run out of ammo in the field.

I'm committing a slight Ad Hominim fallacy here, but I'll go ahead and say it: You're an idiot.

Quote
-army: A almost unlimited supply of cash from the tax payers (the pentagon just override the cost of almost any weapon they develop), so they are not submitted to the pressure of a business, they still love tanks, artillery and fighter jets 
-Private: We have a limited amount of cash and we need to make the most of it   so will not see tanks or aircraft carrier, but instead highly powerful and effective weapon will be preferred to dumber ones

Your right! Aircraft carriers are stupid! I hate being able to project air power across the globe for the establishment of no-fly zones or the deployment of nuclear weapons! And you know what's even worse? Those damn precision strikes with their ability to destroy key buildings or bunkers to disable enemy military production.

And don't even get my started on the Predator Drone program! Cowardly government -- investing in robots that are highly effective at killing insurgents without ever placing human lives at risk. REAL MEN would deflect the bullets with the massive piles of cash they didn't spend on such wasteful, statist systems.

 ::)

Quote
In an AnCap society, it will be perfectly legal to own full-auto battle rifles - and this practice will be socially encouraged. The typical homeowner will have such a rifle, and a thousand rounds or more, and will train on a monthly basis, earning prizes and recognition in regular competition. A high percentage will be skilled at 300 and 500 yard distances.  They'll have proper scopes and the skills and equipment to properly allow for range and windage. They'll also have much more powerful equipment, including explosive devices which can destroy tanks. The Afghans are able to improvise such equipment even in their much smaller economy; in an AnCap society, you'll find everything you need to destroy a tank at your local hardware store. Practice sessions will be a rite of passage for teen boys and girls.

That society sounds profoundly scary, and even if it was perfectly safe I would hate to live in it.

Quote
Meanwhile, badly-trained conscripts in the hypothetical invading army will be trained to shoot and pray at distances of 100 yards. They will, however, be highly skilled marchers who look splendid in parades.

You're aware that the army of the USA, right now, the best trained and equipped army on the planet, is a "Statist" army, yes? The kind of army your opponent would very likely be able to raise?

Quote
As for the cost of gas agents, consider an artillery shell version to be a few hundred dollars.  This covers roughly a few hundred yards square at most.  Multiply by the size of a country, even say Lichenstien, and this is a large cost.

Now add in the cost of the equipment required to place the gas on the ground.  Now multiply this cost by maintanance, replacement of lost equipment, and manpower costs for operation of the equipment.  possibly multiply the  amount of gas due to air movements, terrain irregularities, and other factors.

You don't have to gas every square inch of the country, genius. You gas the major population centers and towns, mine the roads, destroy the food supply so people have to forriage, etc. You also don't have to do it with shells, since once any major opposition is removed, you can drive your trucks upwind of the target and open larger gas cannisters before insurgents can get to your position.

Quote
Invading army list of priorities and intended targets :
- To destroy : Security agency headquarters, ammunition depots and factories.
- To capture : Bank vaults and industries.

So :
1- I concede that such a society can't keep up with a ''standard'' line battle against the invading army, or at least will face scarcity of ammunition has the battle lengthen in term of quantity and calibre.

Yes, yes. A popular insurgency in a well armed populace can drive away an attacker. I'm not now and have never disputed that point. But let me translate what you said into the mindset of someone who would actually attack such a nation, knowing how well armed it is:

Invading army list of priorities and intended targets :
- To destroy : The entire local population.
- To capture : The natural resources they'll leave behind.

So :
1- I concede that such a society can't keep up with a ''standard'' line battle against the invading army, and therefore will most likely be gassed, suffering millions of casualties and never fully recovering, if they ever do drive away the attacker.

Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong

You're wrong. That was me, correcting you.

Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 24, 2010, 03:59:35 pm
@Jtuxyan:

Which is why the military has since abandoned tanks and- Wait no. That didn't happen. Because one test under highly specific circumstances does not eliminate the tactical value of tanks overall, nor does it prove that they're in any way "out of date".

Tank are best for the purpose for which their were built : armoured assault and manoeuvre warfare ... but their are of no use to hold a city when gas is getting rarer because your supply line are being sabotaged and the personnel is getting killed by ... bounty killers  ;D

That's your plan.

Have an entire army of snipers and pray to the higher powers they don't run out of ammo in the field.


Actually I believe its that you snipe the soldiers and officers one after another in an insurgency scenario  ;D doesn't take 1 million bullets to cause a paranoia frenzy against an invading army ... remenber the soviet snipers of Stalingrade  ;D

Your right! Aircraft carriers are stupid! I hate being able to project air power across the globe for the establishment of no-fly zones or the deployment of nuclear weapons! And you know what's even worse? Those damn precision strikes with their ability to destroy key buildings or bunkers to disable enemy military production.

And don't even get my started on the Predator Drone program! Cowardly government -- investing in robots that are highly effective at killing insurgents without ever placing human lives at risk. REAL MEN would deflect the bullets with the massive piles of cash they didn't spend on such wasteful, statist systems.


The US army, which is the most competent army around, use the same material for more than 20 years, overrun the projected cost of almost every program, fail to keep up with new technology or develop newer.

At the pace that private R&D goes in other industry, I'm pretty sure that a completely private weapon industry serving private customers would provide a much better deal for the money. You will see much more powerful weapons for defence instead of the cult of ''white elefants'' of many armies lol
Even the US army tend to store weapon they won't like us  ;D
You also have to remember that the bulk of the financial burden is on the attacker, all those aircraft carrier and tanks are most of the time useless and thus many armies tends to break at financial side just like the Soviet  ;D

You said in the other thread that no army lost ''when it had his leadership decapitated'' ... and you were wrong  ;D
Most armies indeed loose because they have no officers of qualities and NCO's ... which explain why Israel pretty much kicked Arab armies since 1948 and why the Afghan and Iraqi army trained by the US is pretty much ineffective. The lack of quality officers is also what plagues the current Russian army

So indeed Oficers are pretty more precious than you think, so killing 50% of them in preferably bloody campaign of targeted assasination can pretty much not only curb the chain of command but greatly demoralize

You're aware that the army of the USA, right now, the best trained and equipped army on the planet, is a "Statist" army, yes? The kind of army your opponent would very likely be able to raise?

but remember that the US army and the IDF are pretty much the exception, not the rule, most other armies, even the Russian one, is pretty much incompetent at some level  ;D

So yes it would be difficult to win if you face the IDF or the US army ... but any other force (french, russian, Sirian or else) is pretty much easier

So again, the US army and the IDF are exceptions, not the rule. which mean that an AnCap society can pretty much win when attacked, you are just trying to refuse to concede the point but considering ONLY the extreme scenario of being attacked by a maniacally psychopath
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Zilabus on March 24, 2010, 04:31:49 pm
Make no mistake. Invading forces will likely know where to strike to disable common means of air and naval defense. You say banks, security agencies, and other industry headquarters will likely be the ones holding the best means of defense, because they have the most to spend and the most to lose. A very valid point. Because the largest companies are usually publicly traded, information on their spending will be avalable to anyone with interest in it and funds. This means the enemy force will likely be aware of the location of many of the bigger ant-air, anti-rocket, and anti-naval outposts. One key to modern defensive warfare is having such outposts, but keeping them hidden or inaccesable to the enemy. As you said, their first attacks will likely be on these, the biggest threats. And as prepared as they are for attack, they likely aren't prepared enough for a sudden strike that knows exactly what fortifications they've purchased and the number of people they are employing. If an invading force can overwhelm these places early with a ground invasion, there will no longer be a need for large scale street-to-street, door-to-door fighting in every location of importance. Domination by air and sea will make defeat of any organized forces relatively non-damaging.


There is no garuntee that a libertarian society will be so full of shooting enthusiasts. Given the choice today, many people avoid the ownage and use of firearms alltogether. Unless people are forced to compete and practice with firearms regularly (Which isn't something that would happen in Libertarian living) you can't so generally state that everyone will be some kind of great marksmen. You also cannot rule out pacifists, people who have a fear of firearms (Which is a suprisingly large amount) and supporters of the invading states cause. An entire population of well trained gunman with a large supply of ammunition and firearms isn't likely when people are given the choice to do whatever they want, pro or anti-firearms.

Even if the entire population is locked and loaded gunmen, they will be decentralized and unorganized, which is a double edged sword. There will be no central leader that you can excecute, granted. There will also be a lack of cohesien, or the ability to respond to an enemy properly. An invading army could sweep north through the state, taking it city by city. Would the Militia in a city 100 miles north have any reliable information on the invader who just wiped out it's southern neighbor? Sure, you would know they where attacked, and maybe even know how, but you would have no accurate idea of how many, how strong, and what. The militia fighters in the southern city would likely have no idea of how to contact other Militias, and if they even still existed. They would have nobody above them to report to to inform their allies of what they are facing. Their would be no coheision, which leaves the bulk of the invading army taking on scattered and misinformed rebel pockets. We have a big problem with information control and the act of getting proper information to our troops now, in the most ideal of situations. In a less then ideal situation, the big problem would become cataclysmic.

Even well trained rebels have little hope of defeating a much larger and supirior force they know almost nothing about, and have no support against. The job of the invading force becomes simple. Find and exterminate groups of weakened enemy.

Think also of friendly fire. A large problem in todays military. Flannel wearing marksmen Joe could easily kill large numbers of allies by mistake. A city invasion is extremely chaotic, add a lack of a comand structure and you could have rebels firing morters into their own allies defensive fortifications. Finally, think of Guerillas in many other simmiliar situations, like the South after the Civil war. It is often that they will harm their own people to help their efforts. Stealing food and supplies, hunkering down on your property and endangering you and your family, accidentally attacking innocents, occasionally even turning into little more then glorified bandits. In these situations, it isn't difficult for the populous to turn on those figting against the invading empire.

In the end though, all of this still assumes that the invading army is realatively human and follows currently set geneva conventions. If they don't (Which is the case with the majority of totalitarian forces) ANcap society would be in even worse of a position.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 24, 2010, 05:26:23 pm
Because the largest companies are usually publicly traded, information on their spending will be avalable to anyone with interest in it and funds. This means the enemy force will likely be aware of the location of many of the bigger ant-air, anti-rocket, and anti-naval outposts. One key to modern defensive warfare is having such outposts, but keeping them hidden or inaccesable to the enemy.

This is a fair point, will I have some objections :

1- Many companies are able to conserve some sense of secrecy around some sensible aspects of their business and don't exactly provide readily and crystal transparent at his point, especially in term of safety. But shit happen and incompetence isn't a capital sin yet  ;D

2- At the current technology level it is a little bit difficult to hide facility with observation satellite ... so any reasonable modern defence with any chance of success may keep with the fact that the enemy have at least satellite imagery of it

If an invading force can overwhelm these places early with a ground invasion, there will no longer be a need for large scale street-to-street, door-to-door fighting in every location of importance.

This is a question of tactic not strategy and it is a completely open question. This depends on how does the attack is performed and how does the defence is performed.
No plan ... both of attack and defence ... survive contact with the enemy.

There is no garuntee that a libertarian society will be so full of shooting enthusiasts. Given the choice today, many people avoid the ownage and use of firearms alltogether. Unless people are forced to compete and practice with firearms regularly (Which isn't something that would happen in Libertarian living) you can't so generally state that everyone will be some kind of great marksmen. You also cannot rule out pacifists, people who have a fear of firearms (Which is a suprisingly large amount) and supporters of the invading states cause. An entire population of well trained gunman with a large supply of ammunition and firearms isn't likely when people are given the choice to do whatever they want, pro or anti-firearms.

Yes it is true that there is no guaranty that a libertarian society will be full of gun nuts. But with the current avaible experience, especially in country with at least softer like the US, which have around 200 millions handguns and likely more assault rifles and other fire-arms. It is not a guaranty, but by extrapolating from the current US situation, we can consider that a libertarian society will likely have a strong minority of gun nuts .. lets say some 30% which  is quite enough to cause troubles

Even if the entire population is locked and loaded gunmen, they will be decentralized and unorganized, which is a double edged sword. There will be no central leader that you can excecute, granted. There will also be a lack of cohesien, or the ability to respond to an enemy properly. An invading army could sweep north through the state, taking it city by city. Would the Militia in a city 100 miles north have any reliable information on the invader who just wiped out it's southern neighbour? Sure, you would know they where attacked, and maybe even know how, but you would have no accurate idea of how many, how strong, and what. The militia fighters in the southern city would likely have no idea of how to contact other Militias, and if they even still existed. They would have nobody above them to report to to inform their allies of what they are facing. Their would be no cohesion, which leaves the bulk of the invading army taking on scattered and misinformed rebel pockets. We have a big problem with information control and the act of getting proper information to our troops now, in the most ideal of situations. In a less then ideal situation, the big problem would become cataclysmic.

Point taken ;) will this is problem when running a manoeuvring campaign in which you need to move around force around the theatre of operations to deny the enemy strategic position and so on, it is an advantage if you are fighting a guerilla campaign. When there is not central command, but just independent cells working day and night to make the occupier live a misery, the guerilla is like to win at the war of attrition

You see most of the manoeuvring part of the Iraq and Afghanistan war were quite short ... but the trouble started when they actually tried to occupy the territory and face an insurgency campaign. In both case the mightiest army on earth only saved it honour by trying associate native at their efforts. When you fail to gain support of a significant part of the local population, you end up beaten like in Vietnam. But again, I'm not saying that it guaranty instant victory from an AnCap society :P

Think also of friendly fire. A large problem in todays military. Flannel wearing marksmen Joe could easily kill large numbers of allies by mistake. A city invasion is extremely chaotic, add a lack of a comand structure and you could have rebels firing morters into their own allies defensive fortifications. Finally, think of Guerillas in many other simmiliar situations, like the South after the Civil war. It is often that they will harm their own people to help their efforts. Stealing food and supplies, hunkering down on your property and endangering you and your family, accidentally attacking innocents, occasionally even turning into little more then glorified bandits. In these situations, it isn't difficult for the populous to turn on those figting against the invading empire.

Good point, but it just means that it depend on how you apply the guerilla strategy and doesn't mean that the strategy itself is wrong. This an operation question, it depends on how the guerilla is conducted.

In the end though, all of this still assumes that the invading army is realatively human and follows currently set geneva conventions. If they don't (Which is the case with the majority of totalitarian forces) ANcap society would be in even worse of a position.

Yes, of course it will be worse to face the return of Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler... or some of the heads of the Bananas republics of the world. But the good news is that those are generally the ones with the worst army ... but even so it is daunting challenge
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 24, 2010, 05:45:42 pm
Quote
Tank are best for the purpose for which their were built : armoured assault and manoeuvre warfare ... but their are of no use to hold a city when gas is getting rarer because your supply line are being sabotaged and the personnel is getting killed by ... bounty killers 

For the last time, holding a city is not up for discussion here. Holding a city is an aspect of occupation, and I have already said that occupying a resisting populace is impossible. To exterminate a city, you only have to hold ground within reasonable striking distance of it, something at which tanks and all armored heavy units excel.

Quote
Actually I believe its that you snipe the soldiers and officers one after another in an insurgency scenario   doesn't take 1 million bullets to cause a paranoia frenzy against an invading army ... remenber the soviet snipers of Stalingrade 

Where the Nazi's still didn't use gas. Are you being thick, or not getting that Occupation=/= Destruction?

Quote
he US army, which is the most competent army around, use the same material for more than 20 years, overrun the projected cost of almost every program, fail to keep up with new technology or develop newer.

At the pace that private R&D goes in other industry, I'm pretty sure that a completely private weapon industry serving private customers would provide a much better deal for the money. You will see much more powerful weapons for defence instead of the cult of ''white elefants'' of many armies lol
Even the US army tend to store weapon they won't like us 
You also have to remember that the bulk of the financial burden is on the attacker, all those aircraft carrier and tanks are most of the time useless and thus many armies tends to break at financial side just like the Soviet 

Because the US right now is going broke due to the expenses of keeping up it's standing army. Oh wait, no. We're managing despite waging two, expensive occupation wars. Try again. Furthermore, another state can just buy their weapons from this uber-market you're supposing, or steal the plans and make their own AKA China's intellectual property laws, so either way, all sides have the same arms technology.

Quote
but remember that the US army and the IDF are pretty much the exception, not the rule, most other armies, even the Russian one, is pretty much incompetent at some level 

I dispute this claim. Prove it.

Quote
his is a question of tactic not strategy and it is a completely open question. This depends on how does the attack is performed and how does the defence is performed.
No plan ... both of attack and defence ... survive contact with the enemy.

"Everyone in the area without a gas mask dies." is a surprisingly robust plan.

Quote
es, of course it will be worse to face the return of Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler... or some of the heads of the Bananas republics of the world. But the good news is that those are generally the ones with the worst army ... but even so it is daunting challenge

So you concede the necessity of a standing army capable of repelling an initial invasion.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 24, 2010, 06:13:20 pm
For the last time, holding a city is not up for discussion here. Holding a city is an aspect of occupation, and I have already said that occupying a resisting populace is impossible. To exterminate a city, you only have to hold ground within reasonable striking distance of it, something at which tanks and all armored heavy units excel.
[/quote]

Stay cool, so at least you finally accept a point. so lets move on .. wait ... I know that razing a city is the best thing artillery and tanks can do.


Quote
Where the Nazi's still didn't use gas. Are you being thick, or not getting that Occupation=/= Destruction?

The point is that you don't need huge amounts of ammunition to strike fear on an occupier army, I gave the example of Stalingrade, because there Soviet snipers terrorized Nazi soldiers by killing them one at a time when they where resting or weren't expecting it ... or ''hunt them''


Quote
Because the US right now is going broke due to the expenses of keeping up it's standing army. Oh wait, no. We're managing despite waging two, expensive occupation wars. Try again. Furthermore, another state can just buy their weapons from this uber-market you're supposing, or steal the plans and make their own AKA China's intellectual property laws, so either way, all sides have the same arms technology.

The US have huge financial problems, you should know about it.

The fact that all sides will have the same weapon is not an disadvantage, this just mean that the fate rest on how operations are conducted.

I dispute this claim. Prove it.

You dispute the claim that most armies are incompetent  :o lol

Tell me how many armies can execute total air superiority, tactical and strategical superiority and maintain decent supply lines .... 50 ? 100 ? You pretty much have Israel IDF and US army ... what else ?

Especially when you move in the territory of Banana dictator armies, the drop in quality is even more drastic, even when they have a lot of cash from oil to spend on weaponry

What make the US and Israel stand out of the crowd is also that they have good NCO's and good structure of command ... while some of the most problematic armies, especially the Arab ones don't have it because their supreme leader want supreme control.

Most countries army are not ''professional'', they are basically dudes with guns who obey the orders of some egocentric leader, there is not delegation of task and no decent chain of command. A captain in the front line who cant make tactical decision is worthless and most of the armies in the world are in this  shap

A good example is how Libya got beaten up in northern Chad, in what could have been a cake walk. Kadafi army was deafeted by some untrained rebels roaming around in Toyotas  ;D

Sacre bleu ... even Russia, which on paper could have raped Georgia, was unable to achieve complete air superiority against a country ... without combat air-planes

I challenge you give me a list with 10 competent armies  ;D

So you concede the necessity of a standing army capable of repelling an initial invasion.

I never said that it was impossible to live without a standing army in the first place

My point is that it is also neither impossible to live without it ... or at least with a standing army the kind Switzeland have ... you know one who actually DEFEND the country instead of policing the world  ::)

But in any case, unless outright genocidal massacre, there a chance to win in a AnCap context
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 24, 2010, 07:53:18 pm
Quote
Stay cool, so at least you finally accept a point. so lets move on .. wait ... I know that razing a city is the best thing artillery and tanks can do.

So since razing the city is the goal, you admit I'm right.

Quote
The point is that you don't need huge amounts of ammunition to strike fear on an occupier army,

Occupation is not the goal.

Quote
The fact that all sides will have the same weapon is not an disadvantage,

You claimed it as an advantage for the defenders, you  have admitted this is not the case, point conceded.

Quote
You dispute the claim that most armies are incompetent   lol

Explain to me what's wrong with Britain's armies.

Quote
But in any case, unless outright genocidal massacre, there a chance to win in a AnCap context

Thus, AnCap is not sufficient on it's own without a standing army, thank you for conceding.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Sean Roach on March 24, 2010, 10:23:37 pm
I believe we have at least 3 beliefs here.
I'm a minarchist, and a micro-stater, (I want the states to have states rights reaffirmed, states WERE nations, much as England, France, Germany, etc ARE nations.)  I believe that yes, we really do need the means to call up an army, but a standing army is expensive, and government work is inefficient, since it doesn't seek to squeeze every drop of stated benefit from each nickel.  (Now, if the benefit is a job with good benefits, where you don't have to strive to stay competitive, and can be assured of a good retirement, possibly even jobs for friends of the government officials, perhaps it achieves it's desired goals.)
Technically speaking, that leaves me a statist.

There are those who are anarchists, and those who are anarcho-capitalists.  They believe the free market can solve every problem.  Perhaps they are right.  Certainly, at a certain scale, and under certain conditions, it could become difficult to distinguish a corporations actions with those of a state.  Being a "citizen" of Coca-Cola could be possible.  Either believe you can protect your home with volunteer labor, because it's your home, so you will volunteer the labor.  Either believe that market forces would encourage a certain degree of ...selection... regarding tendencies to protest the tank treadmarks in the flowerbed.  Certainly they are at least correct to the point where the experiment has been allowed to run.  In a commercial setting or residential setting, everyone benefits from one parties decision to improve their own property.  If you keep your lawn mowed, there are fewer rats to infest your neighbors house, but you don't consider charging your neighbor for keeping the rat population down.  If your neighbor lets his grow "two inches higher than the dog" in the backyard, you don't have any real recourse to Force him to keep his property trimmed so YOU don't have a rat problem, though if it's important enough to you, you might volunteer to do the mowing, or pay to have it done.

Then there is you, who want a military with all the protection from prosecution, competition, and bargaining such a military enjoys today.  All based on the possibility an aggressive outside force, (let's refrain from saying government, perhaps Pepsi decides to eliminate Coke, root and branch) who intends to eradicate your group, rather than subjugate your group.  
I'd have to argue such a system does not work optimally.  When any group has an "I Win" button, they don't improve themselves adequately.  Any chink where corruption can enter, corruption will enter.  Power does make corruption easy, hence "power corrupts", but it's also true that the corrupt seek power.
Any loophole in the definition of "for the needs of national defense" will be exercised, be it evicting "undesirables", (Muslims? Japanese?  Germans?  Poor people?), setting up a country club for the officers, (my own post above,) demanding unfair concessions, perhaps making a habit of impressing everyone unless they give the recruitment officer a (monetary) reason to exempt them, or perhaps making a habit of impressing the most productive for whatever pet project the commander, or commander in chief, has come up with, (sounds like slave labor to me.)

I leave you with two quotes and a statement, non-original, but I can't quickly find a reference.
"A small leak can sink a great ship." and "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ", both Benjamin Franklin.
the rights of the group extend from the rights of the individual, nothing that is forbidden to the individual should be permitted to the group.

P.S.  And I still suspect you both of being ringers.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on March 25, 2010, 12:17:23 am
Once again, why all the scenarios where the bad guys have the cool weaponry? You haven't really thought about the economic implications of AnCap. The faith-based paper engine which drives the military-industrial complex of the bad guys collapses when government have to pay with real gold "on the barrel", every time.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on March 25, 2010, 12:29:01 am
We have a lot of anti-gun propaganda all over America, and yet we still have approximately 70 million gun owners. Why do you think an AnCap society would not have even more? It would be obvious in such a society that defense is a personal responsibility, not something delegated to government police and military forces.

You think a nation of snipers is ludicrous. Why? Switzerland boasts of as much.

America was once noted for their widespread proficiency with firearms. You've forgotten how much our culture has changed. Annie Oakley was a folk hero in her day; people gathered in towns all across America to watch her shows. Kids would practice, trying to improve their own skills. Even today, with the active societal discouragement, there are still many skilled marksmen; they just don't do popular shows anymore.

There is a story that a German general was visiting Switzerland, watching a rifle competition, where men were shooting at 300 yards, and said to the Swiss counterpart, "What would you do if one million Germans were at the border, and you have only half a million soldiers?"

The Swiss general answered "Shoot twice."

Title: State Sponsored Terrorism and AnCap
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 25, 2010, 01:05:34 am
I'd like to turn the tables for a moment. How would an AnCap state deal with terrorism?

At the moment, there is a vast chunk of the world that is controlled by Muslims, an astonishing number of whom do not like us. Most Muslims are basically the same as people anywhere else: They want to keep their families fed, clothed and sheltered, and beyond that they could not care less. They may dislike is in a general sense, but would not be willing to blow themselves up on a bus in L.A. However, the evidence is pretty clear that a great number of Muslims who are willing to do take part in a jihad against the West.

Let us imagine that America decides to adopt the AnCap philosophy, gets rich and well-armed, and brings our troops home.

Now, imagine that some of the dictators who were afraid of America's response to terrorism get wise to the fact that we have renounced aggressive action. (Somewhat like today, with an idiot pacifist in the White House. Keep negotiating with Iran, Barry. Maybe Ahmadinejad will invite you to the test of their first nuke over Tel Aviv.) This modern-day Saladin decides that he will fund a terrorist insurgency within America with the end goal of forcing us to accept Sharia law.

Wouldn't happen, you say? Why? The man who founded the Islamic Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb, lived in America from 1948-1950 and became convinced that we had to be stopped. Our women showed their ankles and faces! Even worse, they mixed with men all the time, even in church! Our materialism and economic system was seen as displaying a distinct lack of faith in Allah, and therefore as heretical. He complained about everything from sports to dogs in his articles and books on the West. He hated us with a passion because of precisely the things that AnCap fans seek to strengthen. Any AnCap "state" (I know there is no state in AnCap, but it is shorthand for geographical regions where there is no government, but the citizenry self-organizes,) would become an immediate target for jihadists.  

Our buddy Saladin trains, equips and pays a Hezbollah equivalent to head to America and start blowing things up. Since there is no states, there is no terrorist watch-list, customs or immigration authority. True, the terrorist watch-list does a piss-poor job of keeping jihadists out at the moment, but it at least acts as a deterrent, and forces them to travel in mufti. Since there is nobody at the borders to stop them, they can haul in whatever they like. Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Explosives by the ton. Any number of jihadists.

These operatives nuke a few cities for a start. Then they release smallpox in a few more. With the "nation" thrown in to chaos, and people fleeing major cities, they start mining roads and detonating car bombs in the inevitable traffic jams. They fire sarin-packed mortars at the refugee camps, and detonate car bombs and IED's in the midst of fleeing people.

How does an AnCap "state" (see above disclaimer) stop all of this?

Forget the Holy War angle, what about Ted Turner? In a "state" where nothing is prohibited by law, how do you stop Ted Turner from nuking Texas for producing so much oil and polluting his beloved environment? How do you stop the Mexicans who demand Texas back? How do you stop Greenpeace from pulling off a Rainbow 6 and spreading weaponized Ebola? How do you stop the Nazis, the Mansons and the Marxists?

The only way to stop these groups is to cut-off their funding and to pursue their leadership wherever they are found. Banking laws help a lot on the financial front, but attacking the people who fund it works a lot better. Saddam Hussein and friends paid a lot of cash to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to fund suicide bombers, and provided in-kind aid to groups like al Qaeda. When Saddam was so publicly dealt with, a lot of other regimes wised-up and stopped funding terrorists. On the leadership front, we could issue bounties on the leaders and hope they are brought in, but how many other nations would consider it an act of war for the AnCaps to fund an assassination on their territory? The AnCap "state" (see above disclaimer,) could end up at war with half the globe for assassinating people.

How do we prevent attacks? We can't wiretap people, we can't screen people at non-existent customs stations, we can't monitor financial transactions, we can't hack in to email accounts, etc.

AnCap CANNOT stop a terrorist insurgency within its borders. A government could do so, even if it would be with difficulty.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 25, 2010, 01:09:58 am
Once again, why all the scenarios where the bad guys have the cool weaponry? You haven't really thought about the economic implications of AnCap. The faith-based paper engine which drives the military-industrial complex of the bad guys collapses when government have to pay with real gold "on the barrel", every time.

When has this ever happened?
Title: Casualty Ratios for Guerilla forces vs. a trained, organized force.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 25, 2010, 02:06:28 am
Link is to a good analysis of the casualty rates (using NVA/VC's own figures, so probably low,) and a great deal of firsthand information about fighting well-trained guerrillas and 3rd world armored units. http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html (http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html)

During the Tet Offensive, hardened VC guerrilla fighters who had been planning attacks for months hit forces all over South Vietnam, while NVA regulars struck from the North. The results were as follows:

United States
1,536 KIA, 7764 WIA.

NVA/VC
45,000 KIA. Too many to count WIA.

30:1 Guerrilla Dead: U.S. Dead.

For the war as a whole:

US - 47,378 KIA.
NVA/VC - 1.1 Million.
23.2:1 Guerilla Dead: U.S. Dead

Now, I realize that there are a lot of problems with the comparison I just made. Equating the VC (guerrillas) and the NVA (regular army,) is sort of muddying the waters. On the other hand, a hypothetical AnCap state would have armed security forces, so maybe it's not so bad, after all. Including the dead amongst ARVN forces reduces the ratios to about 5:1 Guerrillas: Allies in both cases.

The VC and NVA were composed of people who had already been fighting the French Army for a decade before we got involved. They were tough-as-nails and up against a questionably-trained, -led and -equipped American conscript force. We simply weren't ready to fight the VC/NVA at the time. Both the American and VC/NVA forces improved during the course of the fighting, However, the point here is that the VC were already trained, experienced guerrilla fighters and they still died at 5 times the rate of the entire allied force!

Guerrilla warfare is even HARDER than that today. Widespread availability of UAV's means that you are always being silently hunted from the skies. Infrared and starlight scopes combined with cheap and effective motion sensors mean that the night provides less concealment than ever. Modern ELINT equipment makes communicating and coordinating without being overheard harder than ever. Hiding in a bunker or tunnels these days means that somebody is going to drop an FAE on you, and you are about to be suffocated and/or cooked.

Red Dawn is less likely than Red Puddle of Goo. Supercool guns, equipment, etc. Does not matter if you don't have artillery, fighter/bombers, attack choppers and tanks. If you do, I wish you luck. You will be the first targets of any hypothetical enemy. They will go after you with everything they can, and then start hunting guerrillas 24/7. A few standout atrocities will mean that the local population will start thinking very hard about supporting and/or permitting guerrillas to operate in their area. Taking and shooting hostages is legal if civilians are resisting you. Armies will do it if they are fighting AnCaps. If somebody threatens to shoot your son/daughter if you don't turn in the guerrillas, you might choose to fight them, instead. You won't be alone. A lot of people will choose to rat you out.

A guerrilla army will make life uncomfortable, but it will not win. Eventually, you will lose if the enemy stays committed. Whether it is NKVD troops standing behind the lines with machine guns to ensure that you do not run from a fight, the local mullah who tells you it is a holy war, or simple patriotism, there are ways to motivate people to stay in the fight long enough to succeed.

Do not fool yourselves.
Title: Special Forces units are not the same as rebels.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 25, 2010, 02:31:01 am
As for the highly motivated small groups, I remember a private company composed of ex special forces operatives that contracted with an african government for action against the rather large rebel army having an effect well outside of their raw numbers and equipment.  that is, until the government was pressured into allowing the U.N. to send a rather large and inneffective peacekeeping force instead.  I think what special forces records are available would show the real life examples of small, motivated and well equiped forces causing havoc with large national army type forces. 

Special Forces units are generally the best of the best. They are selected from those who are the most physically fit, intelligent, well-trained, experienced, and equipped. These guys are elite. Rebel forces are not. Arguing that elite troops who have spent years being specially trained to foment and/or crush rebel groups show that small forces can do great things is like arguing that Hiroshima proves that a single bomber is more-than-capable of taking out all of the air defense in a single city.

As to the use of chemical weapons against guerrilla forces, i would urge you to visit Halabja... if it was there anymore.

You don't have to gas every inch, you just have to gas a few of the guerrilla's families.
Title: Can you kill the whole leadership of an invading army?
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 25, 2010, 02:46:23 am
This whole argument has been disproved by history.

America in Iraq and Afghanistan. Insurgents tried to kill the leaders, and they got a pretty-high percentage of them. Leadership always has a higher percentage of casualties. Especially decent leadership, which is generally in front.

Sniping may sound dramatic and effective, and it is. It is not something everybody can or will do. Furthermore, sniping is not good for your health. Troops generally forget to take prisoners when hunting snipers. To be truly effective, they need to be backed by conventional forces, or to have a safe area to which they can retreat.

Snipers also tend to inspire things like hostage taking. The Russians do this all the time. If you snipe an officer, suddenly 100 of your fellow citizens are lined up against walls and you have 24 hrs. to turn yourself in. Your fellow citizens are going to be very upset with snipers after a little while.
Title: For what purpose?
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 25, 2010, 03:04:56 am
I've been trying to decide who I am supposed to be an agent provacateur for. Any ideas?
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: BMeph on March 25, 2010, 03:07:58 am
I'm calling a flag on the thread, for unnecessary roughness, and illegal use of topic switching. Now, since I'm not a referree, or any official ere, it's obvious that I'm just playing around. However, I still cry foul: Jtuxyan, you're playing bait-and-switch with your goals here.

As a reminder of what the discussion was billed as, I will quote the OP:
In order to not be conquered by it's Statist neighbors, an AnCap state would need to raise it's own armed forces. Escape from Terra's hilariously incompetent Terran navy aside, modern armed forces are never defeated by informal millita. A resistance could probably drive the invader our sooner or later, but we'll take it as a given that the occupants of our AnCap area would rather not be conquered in the first place, and so raise a private army.

My question then, is this. A military needs many supplies in order to function -- Food, ammo, the right to set up listening posts and defensive structures, etc. So isn't this a distortion of the basic "no coercion" model? As long as a majority of the country supports the military action, they are in a position of being able to use force without responce, thus violating the premise of the AnCap state.

To give an example, suppose I am this armed forces primary supplier of bullets, and I feel the current price they are paying me is insufficient. They insist that as this ammo is a vital strategic resource, I cannot stop shipping it during the negotiations. This is a seemingly minor detail, but it does qualify as coercion -- the military can drag the negotiations out as long as they want, and my only reprive would be to hope that my neighbors feel as strongly about this as I do, since if I tell them to go to hell, they have the force to just take the ammo.

A better example might be imminent domain. The military wants to assemble a SAM battery to protect a given city, and my property (on the outskirts) is the best location. I refuse to sell -- so they just seize it by force. It's possible that the population of the city might rise up to help me, but it's also very possible they might decide that they *like* being protected by a SAM battery, and I should have sold the land for a fair price when they offered me the chance to do so.

While I could give other examples, the basic theory remains. A nation is best defended by a large, well organized, modern military -- but a single large body with access to lots of armed men trained to obey orders without question distorts the basic assumption of an AnCap society, taking on certain government traits by default.

How could an AnCap society avoid this, without violating the premise of the society?

I will insist on answering the questions asked, not the wildly escalating impossible goals ("How can an AnCap society prevent an overwhelmingly-armed force from doing anything destructive in its territory?" seems to be how it's gotten phrased now) which the increasingly-heated thread has thrown out.

So, to answer the questions asked, from last to first, I'll talk about eminent domain. Eminent domain, by overweening blatantly vicious and immoral thugs will be answered in the time-honored manner: by nighttime reprisals on vulnerable property of the thieves and bullies that ordered the aggression at the start. Brick through the window, gum in the locks, bicycle chains "helping" to keep the mansion gates secure, and the like.

As for the ammo supplier, I would expect the military to have their own factory, if only to cut down on the worries of disgruntled workers filling the rifle cartridges with cayenne powder instead of tracer compound. The same for the SAM installation - I do not want to give the prior land owner any incentive to sabotage the installation that I'm installing to preserve his life and property. As the military missile commander, I have enough to worry about getting normal maintenance done without adding a disgruntled former property owner in collusion with an attacking force to my budget.

Also, who says that only military-controlled food/ammo/listening post/defensive structure/road grading vehicle/uniform are acceptable means of supplying military-grade materiel? Bose makes incredibly high-end microphones and headphones, and not just for the military. Motorola makes communication equipment for more than our "boys in blue." Cisco will happily sell a civilian a 3-ft. cube VPN server, if someone is willing to pay.


On another note, I think we may have been looking at the situation from a completely backwards perspective: with all of this talk of "Red Dawn" in the air (absolutely HORRID Russian, and the Spanish was not much better, BTW), we might want to think of the scenario that would prompt this mythical hungry state to attack the AnCap territory -- maybe there are a bunch of redneck rowdy ruffian types in AnCap land that enjoy poaching on the "Reserves" of their neighbor's Protected Wetlands and Forests?

Who's to say that the AnCap folks "deal" with the criminal populace by giving them "free" trips to the border, and chucking the weapons another two hundred yards further in to the "government" lands?
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 25, 2010, 04:18:40 am
I'm calling a flag on the thread, for unnecessary roughness, and illegal use of topic switching. Now, since I'm not a referree, or any official ere, it's obvious that I'm just playing around. However, I still cry foul: Jtuxyan, you're playing bait-and-switch with your goals here.

I was suspecting it myself that he was playing the classical rhetorical game of setting an extreme(mass extermination) and by it ''proving'' that an AnCap society cannot survive. He stubbornly refuse to see the grey areas and just go to the extremes at each occasion  ::)

On another note, I think we may have been looking at the situation from a completely backwards perspective: with all of this talk of "Red Dawn" in the air (absolutely HORRID Russian, and the Spanish was not much better, BTW), we might want to think of the scenario that would prompt this mythical hungry state to attack the AnCap territory -- maybe there are a bunch of redneck rowdy ruffian types in AnCap land that enjoy poaching on the "Reserves" of their neighbor's Protected Wetlands and Forests?

Who's to say that the AnCap folks "deal" with the criminal populace by giving them "free" trips to the border, and chucking the weapons another two hundred yards further in to the "government" lands?

This sounds like a very plausible scenario indeed, its is better Jtuxyan unconditionally madman which is part of his goal to push the talk to the extreme and ignore plausible scenarios, like the case that the AnCap society is a commercial centre and that destroying it in whole is not a plausible option.

But this scenario of AnCap lurking on government lands is actually happening in Somalia :D where the pirates from are ''visiting'' ships in international waters. The endless repetition of these offensive may get an government to think about retaliation, but just like in Somalia, there is not clear people responsible (like in Gaza the IDF destroy Hamas structures each time a rocket is fired).

But what I'm understand is that the AnCap's will ''sent'' criminals into government lands ? sounds like and idea or I missunderstood
Title: A brief concession
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 25, 2010, 04:44:42 am
The only place AnCap might work, that I can see, is in precisely the situation this comic describes. A hypothetical colony filled with space miners means lots of people who are capable of using the gravity well to drop the equivalent of nuclear weapons on the heads of anybody who attacks them.

I fear for our future, on the other hand, if Islamic extremists or other groups of terrorists who believe that mass slaughter is a good thing get into asteroid mining, and decide to test the theory. Hopefully we will have some form of effective anti-ballistic missile defense by then.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: dough560 on March 25, 2010, 05:53:30 am
The Ft Lewis exercise was one of the first force integration tests of the then new and experimental equipment.

The MP Battalion operated in two and three vehicle teams depending on their weapons mix.  Their primary weapons were the M2 . Heavy Machinegun, Mark 19 Grenade Launcher, M249 Light Machinegun, M60 Medium Machinegun and the TOW Anti-Tank Missile.  They also carried AT4 and Law Anti-Tank Rockets, Stinger Anti-Aircraft missiles, Claymore Mines, C4 Plastic Explosives and their personal weapons which consisted of the M16 Rifle, M16/203 Grenade Launcher Combination and the 1911 Pistol.  Their real force multiplier was the Fast Attack Vehicles.  Vehicles with a low profile and capable of high speeds over rough terrain.

The Armored Brigade had all the trimmings.  M1 Abrams Tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Infantry and Air Support with all that implies.  It took a day, the armored force lost and died.

The Armored Brigade had several problems with the MPs.  They consisted of the speed the MPs utilized in their attacks.  The effectiveness of the MP weapons mix.  The quality of personnel.  MPs as a class are a strange mix.  A MP squad (Yes, men and women) carries more firepower than a infantry platoon. They operate as scouts, conduct rear area security and traffic control while performing law enforcement missions.  They can call for and adjust artillery fire or air support or act as combat medics.  During the cold war they were trained to respond to, kill or capture attacking Russian Spaznatz Special Forces.  They are a relatively small, highly motivated and disciplined corps of unconventional thinkers.  Good people to have on your side.

I cherry-picked the Ft Lewis incident to illustrate a  point.  Most of the thinking displayed here involved large opposing forces locked into a toe-to-toe set piece battle.  In any battle or war, the attacker is always disadvantaged, except if lucky, for knowing when the game starts.  If the attacker is unlucky, the defenders will know more about his plans than he does and act accordingly.

The  MP's demonstrated effectiveness was due to who they were.  Their tactics responded to the situation but would not have been as successful without the MP's drive to succeed.  They recreated WWII North African, American and British "Rat Patrols".  The operational idea is simple, effective and repeatable.  Move Fast, Hit Hard, Get Out.  Their opponents did not die from a massive single blow, but from thousands of cuts.

I submit the AnCap militias would not have been operating in an intelligence vacuum.  The buildup and training of the invading force would have created effects in various markets.  Additionally public discussion of the pending invasion would have been available to anyone who was paying attention.  Do you really think AnCap Businesses would not have been tracking the markets, public opinion and official statements of the aggressor country?  Do you really think the AnCap population would not have held the controlling governmental members individually responsible for their actions?  Do you think individuals or groups would not have acted against these individuals? The moment aggressor units crossed the AnCap Border, retaliatory teams responded and targeted the aggressor government officials.  Many of the teams would have been prepositioned for immediate response. How many of the "elite" would die, before they got the message?

How would the AnCap population have responded to an invading army?  Think of the people's response to the British march and attack of Concord.  The British won during the initial clash, then died and continued to die on their way back to Boston.  Even though the British won the initial battle, they failed in their mission to seize arms, powder and shot.  They only survived in the cities due to naval gunnery support and a disarmed population.

Taking and killing hostages to get your way?  Probable Results:  A self imposed death sentence for the officer giving the order and those who carried it out.  Prove to the natives they have nothing to loose due to reprisals?  Remember these people bend a knee to no one.  Sniping would be the least of your worries.  You do have your life insurance paid up and beneficiary selected?  The same response for the use of weapons of mass destruction.  Additionally bio weapons can not be controlled after release and have a real chance of killing the creator.  Nuclear?  You just destroyed what you came to conquer. Poison Gas, the combined negatives of nuclear and bio weapons.

Terrorism?  In Israel a terrorist detonated a bomb in a grocery store.  After the emergency and news crews arrived the terrorist prepared to detonate a second larger bomb.  A little old lady saw his preparations and used a 9mm pistol to put a bullet in the back of his head, ending the threat.

An alert individual with effective means of self defense is still the best defense against terrorism.  When terrorists try to initiate grand plans and dramatic events, the greater their chance of failure. 
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 25, 2010, 06:52:36 am
I think that dough560 made some great points  ;D

1- An AnCap society with zero regulation and taxation will like become a huge hub of financial and industrial industries, including weaponry and we can see by the example of real live Hong Kong and Singapore. Which enjoy the greater deal of deregulation, that despite a small  area and population they are important economic centre ... in the order of Billions of $.

2- from the facts of point 1, there is therefore a lot of wealth in play, so the scenario of surprise attack become even less probable. You see when you have company with billion in business activities and some millions of stock holders, you end up with a A LOT of people with interest in the climate of business ... and especially in what might disrupt business ... including wars. Future markets tend to sensible to wars and safety issues, so if their are signs of an impending attack, it is almost guaranteed that this will affect the climate of business and especially stocks.

3- Some one asked the question of what guaranties that an AnCap citizen will take up arms ... surely it won't be always on philosophy grounds, but if the AnCap state is a major economical hub, the fact that having an an opened force threatening to sack the town may an enough incentive.

4- dough560 made clear the point that there is not ''perfect'' and unstoppable war machines, tanks, aircraft carriers, fighter jets or anything else can be pretty much neutralized. Weither or not an AnCap society will have the technological means of being armed with proper counter measure depends on two things : Wealth and incentive.
a) Wealth :Has said before, a ''violent''  free market will likely produce tremendous amounts of wealth, so building or buying the weapons won't be a problem.
b) Incentives : if there is indication that some may plan to attack, and given certain time period, you will create a market for the weapons people need to defend themselves ... after all no one go to gun fight with a knife
To paraphrase : If there are signals that the AnCap society may have foreign threat, there will be a market of weapons which are appropriate to deal with them.

5- The terrorist argument : Terrorist are not some kind of overpowered men with embebed night vision in their eyes and 300 IQ ... they are just criminals

Like serial killers or pyromaniacs, they have some enjoyment in murder and destruction, but they are easier to deal with because they are likely to be : have a set of religious believe clearly identifiable, look middle eastern and have the tendency of killing so much people that they make a huge list of enemies.

So dealing with them is not different than dealing with a violent mafia :
a) provide security to the likely targets, people can contract security agencies to do this job ... just like the US is doing in Iraq
b) Investigate and hunt down the member of the gang to bring them to justice. There is nothing magical about it, and we pretty much agree that it is reasonable to think that there will be people who will do such a thing for a living.

The scare scenario of a ''jihadi scenario'' is ... just a scare scenario and nothing else  ::)
A pure libertarian society may have such level of drink and sex that may turn the most radical muslim down ... so that it is not likely a place where they can go.
Secondly this scenario is improbable because the scenario of successful jihad require that the target population is defenceless ... which is not the scenario of an AnCap society ... but at best the Jihadis will end triggering creating so much enemies that they will be wipe out on the confrotation

Again the scare of WMD  ::) again the point that : ''you can't survive a nuclear strike so you can't survive''

This ain't that easy, you see the US have the capacity to wipe out every single nation on earth, but despite that their power of leverage is quite limited. The US can't wipe out every single oil producing nation on earth with nukes ... but this does imply that they can blackmail them and force them to give them oil for free
In the same perspective Russia could nuke Georgia to end the trouble or Israel could nuke Iran or Siria out of existance and thus gain some people of mind ... but it ain't happen
Nukes aren't so much of joy toys to throw around for trivial things ... especially not to nuke an important economic hub which has commercial interest of many people around the globe.

Heilein and Juxtuan ... prepare yourself to learn of the new concept of power : Economical deterrence ... or how China will never be attacked by the US
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 25, 2010, 06:30:45 pm
Quote
Once again, why all the scenarios where the bad guys have the cool weaponry? You haven't really thought about the economic implications of AnCap. The faith-based paper engine which drives the military-industrial complex of the bad guys collapses when government have to pay with real gold "on the barrel", every time.

You mean like the United States has no economy because our government can't turn it's money in gold, right?

No, wait, you're full of crap. As long as there's at least 1 gold mine or jeweler in the world that honors the paper money, there's an exchange rate between the paper money and gold. Plus, many governments (including ours until recently) maintain large gold reserves just in case they ever have to deal with someone who hates paper.

Quote
You think a nation of snipers is ludicrous. Why? Switzerland boasts of as much.

No matter what video games tell you, you cannot shoot incoming bombs out of the air, or destroyed armored vehicles by shooting the super secret weak point. You need large numbers of rank-and-file and support units to escort these expensive, elite units you are fielding. Furthermore, all this training and the recruiting it would necessitate would be far more expensive then the ammo in question, and so a free-market system would discriminate against them.

Quote
I'm calling a flag on the thread, for unnecessary roughness, and illegal use of topic switching. Now, since I'm not a referree, or any official ere, it's obvious that I'm just playing around. However, I still cry foul: Jtuxyan, you're playing bait-and-switch with your goals here.
Quote
I will insist on answering the questions asked, not the wildly escalating impossible goals ("How can an AnCap society prevent an overwhelmingly-armed force from doing anything destructive in its territory?" seems to be how it's gotten phrased now) which the increasingly-heated thread has thrown out.

Unintentional, I assure you. The way it happened is that the primary round of responses to the OP were "The OP poses an invalid question, since an AnCap nation would not require a standing army." The debate then has since centered around if an AnCap nation requires an armed force or not.

Quote
So, to answer the questions asked, from last to first, I'll talk about eminent domain. Eminent domain, by overweening blatantly vicious and immoral thugs will be answered in the time-honored manner: by nighttime reprisals on vulnerable property of the thieves and bullies that ordered the aggression at the start. Brick through the window, gum in the locks, bicycle chains "helping" to keep the mansion gates secure, and the like.

Mob violence, in other words. Works great...if the mob is on your side.

Quote
Who's to say that the AnCap folks "deal" with the criminal populace by giving them "free" trips to the border, and chucking the weapons another two hundred yards further in to the "government" lands?

Now, see, that would be a pretty good reason for a war right there.

Quote
This sounds like a very plausible scenario indeed, its is better Jtuxyan unconditionally madman which is part of his goal to push the talk to the extreme and ignore plausible scenarios, like the case that the AnCap society is a commercial centre and that destroying it in whole is not a plausible option.

But this scenario of AnCap lurking on government lands is actually happening in Somalia  where the pirates from are ''visiting'' ships in international waters. The endless repetition of these offensive may get an government to think about retaliation, but just like in Somalia, there is not clear people responsible (like in Gaza the IDF destroy Hamas structures each time a rocket is fired).

...are you citing Somalia as a success story?

Quote
The Ft Lewis exercise was one of the first force integration tests of the then new and experimental equipment.

I cherry-picked the Ft Lewis incident to illustrate a  point.

One data point proves nothing. Try again.

Quote
Taking and killing hostages to get your way?  Probable Results:  A self imposed death sentence for the officer giving the order and those who carried it out.  Prove to the natives they have nothing to loose due to reprisals?  Remember these people bend a knee to no one.  Sniping would be the least of your worries.  You do have your life insurance paid up and beneficiary selected?  The same response for the use of weapons of mass destruction.  Additionally bio weapons can not be controlled after release and have a real chance of killing the creator.  Nuclear?  You just destroyed what you came to conquer. Poison Gas, the combined negatives of nuclear and bio weapons.

For now the 8th time, in two threads:
Not everyone comes to conquer. Sometimes, for a dictator, all the reason he needs to kill you is that you have defied his will. Reasonableness, efficiency, and sanity are not prerequisites to controlling weapons of mass destruction and large armies.

Quote
3- Some one asked the question of what guaranties that an AnCap citizen will take up arms ... surely it won't be always on philosophy grounds, but if the AnCap state is a major economical hub, the fact that having an an opened force threatening to sack the town may an enough incentive.

"Sacking" the town? What, do you think the town's wealth is in a giant vault hidden under the city, full of gold and jewels and guarded by a dragon?

Modern wealth is in computers, industry, and a trained workforce. There is no economic incentive to conquest anymore. The only motive for such things is political, and in the specified scenario of a dictator determined to make his enemies bow or die, destruction is an acceptable political outcome.

Quote
5- The terrorist argument : Terrorist are not some kind of overpowered men with embebed night vision in their eyes and 300 IQ ... they are just criminals

Criminals who can be funded by foreign governments that can equipment them with Chemical/Bio/Nuclear weapons.

Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on March 25, 2010, 08:20:50 pm
It is absurd to require that an AnCap society be capable of preventing invasion. Switzerland has no such goal. Their goal is to make invasion, should it happen, so costly that it is extremely unlikely.

Yes, it is true that bullets can't stop tanks - but missiles can. What great chunk of your brain is misisng, that you can't conceive of AnCap fighters arrmed with powerful missiles and explosives?

Gold and silver have been used as money for thousands of years. The Bank of Amsterdam was a 100% reserve bank, where every bank note was guaranteed by precious metals, for over 150 years. Faith-based paper is a recent experiment which as failed every time it has been tried. One more on your list of books not to read, because you can't handle the truth: Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles.

if you weren't so busy playing war games, you'd have noticed the economic crisis going on in the Real World, which threatens to bring down several governments, including possibly the United Socialist States of America. As long as you get to posit super-evil dictatorship socialist military forces and popgun-wielding warriors, I can certainly counter with a thriving AnCap society which has reinstituted a sound monetary system, has huge profits, and has developed weapons systems which can blow up your M1 tanks with ease.

In an AnCap society, weapons research will be unrestricted. It will be competitive. It will deliver powerful and inexpensive weaponry. Satellite imagery will not belong only to the socialist governments; equally or more powerful satellites will be lofted by AnCap firms.

It is believed that the French gave codes to the British which disarmed Exocet missiles in the Falklands war. These missiles were powerful enough to destroy British warships.

Imagine AnCap weapons of equal or greater power - and the disarm codes for your popgun weaponry are in the hands of AnCap spies. Wouldn't you think twice about invading?

The scenario where you line up 100 people and shoot them works when the hundred are disarmed. It doesn't work so well when the hundred - and their neighbors - are armed with AK-47s, when little girls think sticking a knife in your guts is an excellent idea, when you are universally despised and hated by people who will defend their liberty with whatever it takes, and damn you to hell for causing them the trouble.

The Warrior Class theory of the Mongols running roughshod over the peasants loses something when little old ladies have the ability to blow your brains out. They don't call it "the great equalizer" for nothing. An AnCap society isn't a collection of huts; it's a collection of wealthy people who, as a hobby, can afford bigger weapons than your so-called "warriors" can.

Forget Red Dawn - that was set in a nation which stupidly discourages people from acquiring weapons and skills. Think of something more like Switzerland on steroids. Caches of real weapons, tank-killers and fighter-killers and battleship-killers. Now explain why you'd do something as lunatic as invading.


Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Sean Roach on March 25, 2010, 08:51:49 pm
Okay, in your hypothetical, terrorists start coming over.

Someone gets the bright idea that a terrorist watchlist would be a salable commodity.  He rents space on a few buildings and lightpoles, (perhaps he just leases all the utility poles straight from the utility.)  He attaches cameras and plugs them into computers with face recognition.  Then he sets up a subscription system.  Do YOU want to know where the most dangerous murderers are?  Would YOU pay to be given a warning if one showed up in your neighborhood, so you could take defensive, or even decisive, action?  If they attacked bridges, toll bridge and highway companies would be all over themselves to get access to this "tip-line".  If they shot up schools, parents would demand school manager/principals get on this tip line and have a plan in place for their arrival.
Someone would set up a competing service.  He'd decide he could do it cheaper, and just almost as good by buying rights to existing signals.  He'd go to the banks with their ATM cameras, and toll companies with their toll-runner cameras, and buy access to their feeds...possibly with the promise of giving them free tips for what he spotted on THEIR cameras only...they pay for the rest.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Jtuxyan on March 25, 2010, 09:51:55 pm
Quote
It is absurd to require that an AnCap society be capable of preventing invasion. Switzerland has no such goal. Their goal is to make invasion, should it happen, so costly that it is extremely unlikely.

Switzerland is surrounded on all sides by allies who do have preventing invasion as their goal, and so cannot be held as a successful example. Furthermore, I find this claim of your questionable, and demand you cite it.

Quote
Gold and silver have been used as money for thousands of years. The Bank of Amsterdam was a 100% reserve bank, where every bank note was guaranteed by precious metals, for over 150 years. Faith-based paper is a recent experiment which as failed every time it has been tried.

So...if the paper money is worthless, lets make a deal. I'll give you this gold ring I have in my dresser drawer, and you'll give me *all* of your little green pieces of paper. Because hey -- real gold for a bunch of little bits of worthless paper is a great deal.

Quote
if you weren't so busy playing war games, you'd have noticed the economic crisis going on in the Real World, which threatens to bring down several governments, including possibly the United Socialist States of America

This is the point where I stop reading your post and start laughing my ass off. Yeah, the union will dissolve any day now.

Seriously though, get in touch with me about those worthless green bits of paper. We can make deal.

Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Rocketman on March 25, 2010, 10:48:39 pm
Quote
It is absurd to require that an AnCap society be capable of preventing invasion. Switzerland has no such goal. Their goal is to make invasion, should it happen, so costly that it is extremely unlikely.

Switzerland is surrounded on all sides by allies who do have preventing invasion as their goal, and so cannot be held as a successful example. Furthermore, I find this claim of your questionable, and demand you cite it.
    You demand huh?  That's kind of arrogant of you isn't it?  Okay, during the Second World War after German had conquered France, Poland, Norway and a number of other eastern european countries, the nazis looked at Switzerland with all of it's gold reserves.  But there was a problem that nearly all of it's adult male Swiss citizens were armed with rifles and knew how to use them.  There is a famous story about a Nazi General talking to a Swiss General.  The Nazi said something like "What would you do if we invaded your country with twice the number of men than you have?"  The Swiss general replied "My men would then shoot twice and then go home."  The Nazi's never invaded them.
     If you want an education on just how well a nation can resist a aggressor nation with a determined citizenry then look at the history of the Finnish people when the USSR invaded them.  While they were over run eventually by sheer numbers.  The USSR was shocked by the number of losses that they suffered.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 26, 2010, 01:53:47 am
Quote
This sounds like a very plausible scenario indeed, its is better Jtuxyan unconditionally madman which is part of his goal to push the talk to the extreme and ignore plausible scenarios, like the case that the AnCap society is a commercial centre and that destroying it in whole is not a plausible option.

But this scenario of AnCap lurking on government lands is actually happening in Somalia  where the pirates from are ''visiting'' ships in international waters. The endless repetition of these offensive may get an government to think about retaliation, but just like in Somalia, there is not clear people responsible (like in Gaza the IDF destroy Hamas structures each time a rocket is fired).

...are you citing Somalia as a success story?


Quote
3- Some one asked the question of what guaranties that an AnCap citizen will take up arms ... surely it won't be always on philosophy grounds, but if the AnCap state is a major economical hub, the fact that having an an opened force threatening to sack the town may an enough incentive.

"Sacking" the town? What, do you think the town's wealth is in a giant vault hidden under the city, full of gold and jewels and guarded by a dragon?

Modern wealth is in computers, industry, and a trained workforce. There is no economic incentive to conquest anymore. The only motive for such things is political, and in the specified scenario of a dictator determined to make his enemies bow or die, destruction is an acceptable political outcome.

Quote
5- The terrorist argument : Terrorist are not some kind of overpowered men with embebed night vision in their eyes and 300 IQ ... they are just criminals

Criminals who can be funded by foreign governments that can equipment them with Chemical/Bio/Nuclear weapons.

1- I'm saying that THAT : there is no central autorithy in Somalia to suffer retaliation each time a merchant ship is taken by pirates, will in the Gaza strip, each time a Kassam is fired, the IDF blow up a Hamas facility.

So if there are criminals coming from an AnCap society, they would have some advantage because they couldn't suffer retaliation easily ... but the solution here, has with Somali pirates victims, is to arm the ships with at least the minimun of security personal or pay some one in the AnCap territory to make some policing

"Sacking" the town? What, do you think the town's wealth is in a giant vault hidden under the city, full of gold and jewels and guarded by a dragon? So in your mind Hong Kong has the same value than Detroit or more like Mogadishiu or Kandahar I mean seriously :D you want to tell that cities have no economical values ? Cleveland and Houston should. .... wait they are not equal :D Houston is the center of major industry, corporation and commercial acquisity and Cleveland is ... well ... produce communist like Denis Kucinich and is full of rust ... yes cities have no ::)

Terrorist ... like always surrounded by myths and legends

Quote
5- The terrorist argument : Terrorist are not some kind of overpowered men with embebed night vision in their eyes and 300 IQ ... they are just criminals

Criminals who can be funded by foreign governments that can equipment them with Chemical/Bio/Nuclear weapons.
[/quote]

Firstly this has not yet happened, this is an hypothetical case, since people who acquire such dangerous weapons tend to guard them very well See Pakistani or russian nukes aren't going to be seen in the black market any soon, so talk about the real threat of the moment, with leader giving money to terrorist to buy conventional explosives

Lockerbie : Muhamar Kadafi send a secret agent to blow up a plane over Scotland ... the Kingdom of Great Britain launch a punitive expedition, land in the shore of libya and sent half of Kadhafis army to heave .... sorry this was my fantasy, the reality is that they nothing special and then realise the terrorist  :o

Beirouth : 400 US soldiers deads killed by the Hezbolla read Iran, who happened to be responsable for taking the US embassy earlier ... response : bring the troop home

9/11 : 3000 US deaths, Ben Laden is the guy. US invade Afghanistan, blow up the talibans, fail to capture the guy and .... drown it self in insurgency  ???

Iraq : No link to terrorist, no weapons ... but get invaded ... I have a theory that Bush mistaken it for Iran ... just saying

Sure terrorist are so well dealt with these days ... I remember there were a time when the Royal Navy had balls not only to provide buoyancy but to punish thugs ... which mean, paraphrasing Ann Coulter in one of her few worth half phrase : Invade there countries, killed their countries and leave (last word is mine)

Punitive expeditions where you enter, blow the crap out, capture the bastard who is in charge and shoot him in front of his subordinate whould have worked better to deal with the problem, but his is just me ;D ;D
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: quadibloc on March 26, 2010, 10:39:22 pm
Assume that you live in a stateless society and you believe the society should have a military. What would you do to achieve that result without violating the non-aggression principle?
Well, I could buy a gun.

I understand that you don't want to spend a lot of time defending Libertarianism, but the problem with asking people with questions to think of the solutions themselves is that not being used to an unfamiliar idea, their ideas might not be as good as the ones Libertarians have spent some time working out. I don't think it's fair to attack Libertarianism based on a strawman.

Of course, one person buying one gun wouldn't defend such a society against a modern army.

But what I could imagine happening in real life - because I'm pessimistic about human nature, believing that people will act in their own self interests rather than obeying their ideals - might be this:

You've got a society of people who simply don't want to be bothered with a government that tells them to don a uniform and go to war. They don't even want the government to come around and collect taxes.

And so they see that the government of some other place plans to invade them, so that they will be enslaved, killed, or in hiding as guerilla fighters? They would rather not be bothered.

Somebody will remember a piece of construction equipment lying around. (Note that this assumes a society remarkably free of nutcases and potential terrorists, though: another argument against certain forms of anarchical thought.)

One extinction-level event coming right up. If there had been something more selective that wouldn't also kill the innocent - that didn't require a lot more work, and a lot more bloodshed on our side to endure - you might have gotten off easy. But there wasn't. So long Earth, been good to know you.

Actually, this isn't even entirely the bad thing it sounds like. Because in most cases, the governments of such other places would have the very good sense not to mess with them, and so nobody gets hurt.

But if you want finesse instead of mass annihilation, you would have to have a lot of people willing to march into combat. Not because it was the only way to defend their freedom, but it was the only way to defend their freedom without unnecessarily killing civilians belonging to the other tribe... for whose safety the government that initiated the aggression was responsible. How much self-sacrifice can one expect people to engage in for the sake of mercy?

Surprisingly, of course, the answer is quite a bit. But there are limits too.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on March 26, 2010, 10:40:58 pm
Is our resident statist the only person in the world who is still unaware of the recent episode of hyperinflation in Zimbabwe? Perhaps he cheered when Gordon Brown sold 400 tonnes of gold when it was at $300/ounce, and is unaware that it now sells for about $1100 per ounce? It's likely that, since he can't handle the truth, and hasn't bothered to read Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, he remains ignorant of the extent to which inflation was negligible when real gold and silver were used - the only way to increase the nominal supply of money was to physically debase the currency, whereas with faith-based paper, you just print more of it. What was it Voltaire said, after the episode inspired by John Law's heroic paper-printing efforts? The value of paper currency eventual returns to the intrinsic value of paper, which is zero.

Feel free to remain ignorant if you can't handle the truth. It's no skin off my nose.

Open a paper, you can read about the troubles in Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Great Britain. You can read about the troubles in Japan, the so-called "lost decade" which is nearly two decades now.

A self-annointed "expert" in military matters who is ignorant of the role of a healthy economy in sustaining military efforts? Have you not read the Art of War? Explain the collapse of the former USSR to us.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 27, 2010, 01:26:42 am
I think that all this frustration is because Heilein and Ktuxuan think the following : A bunch of people go anarchist tomorrow .... how can survive a North Korea invasion 2 days after (if we assume the North Korean don't eat each other along the way lol)

Think of this in the following way : A libertarian society is established for at least 5 years, and must comply the following conditions :
- Have striving economy
- A sizeable population
- A certain critical mass of gun nuts

These tree conditions is to compensate for the tree factor war planer take in account before invading a country :
- What is the economical value of the target and how a war will affect one self economy, for example : a war between the US and China would be catastrophe for the world economy
- The population size influence the size of the force needed to conquer, control and put down a possible insurgency
- How much guns the enemy have and of which quality ... and better if he is disarmed

To those who have problem imagining the defence of a libertarian society, please stop thinking of a overnight scenario ... or you will just produce strawmans
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on March 27, 2010, 07:59:08 pm
jtuxian prateth: "Switzerland is surrounded on all sides by allies who do have preventing invasion as their goal, and so cannot be held as a successful example. "

That is arrant nonsense. Switzerland is surrounded by Germany, Austria, Italy, and France - all of which were under Axis control during WW II. They were not interested in "preventing invasion" of Switzerland, they were interested in invading - but the prospect of facing hundreds of thousands of highly-trained riflemen stopped them.

In a previous post, you spoke of snipers as if they were rare exceptions. This is true in most of today's armies. It is not true in Switzerland. It would not be true in any credible AnCap society. Granted that not everyone will be able to kill with a single shot at a distance of two miles, but the Swiss are trained to kill efficiently - not to spray and pray - at distances of 300 yards. As the classic story goes, when surrounded by twice as many soldiers, "shoot twice and go home." This may be a bit
of hyperbole, but not by much; the Swiss army would not shoot hundreds or thousands of rounds for a single kill, as the American army does. The ratio would be much, much closer to "one shot, one kill."

You may imagine that an AnCap society will spring full-grown from the brow of some future Murray Rothbard. It is far more likely that an AnCap society will evolve inside of one or several existing states. People will develop the capabilities and the philosophy. Home schooling is one such vector. When I began home schooling my children nearly 30 years ago, we were in a tiny minority - but the numbers have been growing by about 10% annually. There are now very significant numbers, and there's still a lot of room to grow. Meanwhile, the government schools are becoming less and less competent.

Another vector is that of self-defense -- more and more people are arming themselves, taking courses, practicing, learning to shoot - not merely with handguns, but with shotguns and rifles. Several states have already passed resolutions which declare that locally-produced and -used weapons are not subject to federal regulations. Extrapolate, and you can see large numbers
of heavily armed people, and a resurgence of private research into really formidable weaponry - including weapons which can destroy battleships.

At some point, perhaps a generation from now, people will look around and realize that an AnCap society grew up around them, without any great commotion. As long as governments do not try to snuff it, there is no reason for a lot of turmoil.

China - a much more restrictive government than ours - has tried to censor the internet. About 2% now know how to "climb the wall", as they call it - to penetrate the firewalls - and share their information with an estimated 20%. People in many other countries are doing the same, climbing the wall, peering at the landscape, and sharing information.

You may be stuck in the matrix, oblivious to the change; that doesn't mean that nothing is happening.

Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Zilabus on March 28, 2010, 01:39:06 am
    You demand huh?  That's kind of arrogant of you isn't it?  Okay, during the Second World War after German had conquered France, Poland, Norway and a number of other eastern european countries, the nazis looked at Switzerland with all of it's gold reserves.  But there was a problem that nearly all of it's adult male Swiss citizens were armed with rifles and knew how to use them.  There is a famous story about a Nazi General talking to a Swiss General.  The Nazi said something like "What would you do if we invaded your country with twice the number of men than you have?"  The Swiss general replied "My men would then shoot twice and then go home."  The Nazi's never invaded them.

That is arrant nonsense. Switzerland is surrounded by Germany, Austria, Italy, and France - all of which were under Axis control during WW II. They were not interested in "preventing invasion" of Switzerland, they were interested in invading - but the prospect of facing hundreds of thousands of highly-trained riflemen stopped them.

There's also a famous story about George Washington cutting down a cherry tree. That doesn't make it true or valid in any way. There is little valid evidence that the Nazi's feared invaded Switzerland. There are some old war stories to support this fact, mainly passed on by old, proud Swiss generals. However, valid evidence points to other reasons. The Nazi's didn't avoid invading the Swiss because they where afraid of being cut down. Even if their military leaders thought it was a bad idea, it's not as if that would have stopped them. Backstabbing Russia was a horrible idea, but Hitler wouldn't be denied. The main reason they didn't invade the Swiss is because they wanted a reliable place to hold their currency, second and third most likely reasons would probably be the Swiss production of raw materials (That the nazi's needed) and the swiss production of arms and munitions. If you don't believe me, you can actually trace swiss bank accounts (It's difficult, because they are, of course, swiss) opened and held by Nazi interests.

Quote
Is our resident statist the only person in the world who is still unaware of the recent episode of hyperinflation in Zimbabwe? Perhaps he cheered when Gordon Brown sold 400 tonnes of gold when it was at $300/ounce, and is unaware that it now sells for about $1100 per ounce? It's likely that, since he can't handle the truth, and hasn't bothered to read Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, he remains ignorant of the extent to which inflation was negligible when real gold and silver were used - the only way to increase the nominal supply of money was to physically debase the currency, whereas with faith-based paper, you just print more of it. What was it Voltaire said, after the episode inspired by John Law's heroic paper-printing efforts? The value of paper currency eventual returns to the intrinsic value of paper, which is zero.



This is caused by mismanagment of inflation, and it in no way points to a lack of value in paper money. The problem with Zimbabwae was they tried to solve inflation by PRINTING MORE MONEY. There are ways to prevent inflation. They just spurred it on. The only time you have people resort to the "Print more!" approach is when you have people who don't have a fundemental understanding of greenbacks. We have an understanding now.  You're the one who keeps talking about how paper money (Which is actually more cotton then paper in the US, and plastic almost everywhere else) has no real value. That's just plain inaccurate. By your argument, gold and silver and precious metals also have no real value. And why is that, you ask? Because precious metals only have value because we place value in them. Just like government backed bills. In antiquity, aluminum was worth more then gold, silver, and bronze. Gold used to be nearly worthless. The argument that precious metals are finite only works when bills aren't finite. Most intelligent governments try to keep bills as finite as possible. Besides. Even governments based on a gold standard had problems with inflation. You see many examples in history.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 28, 2010, 05:32:53 am
There is little valid evidence that the Nazi's feared invaded Switzerland. There are some old war stories to support this fact, mainly passed on by old, proud Swiss generals. However, valid evidence points to other reasons. The Nazi's didn't avoid invading the Swiss because they where afraid of being cut down. Even if their military leaders thought it was a bad idea, it's not as if that would have stopped them. Backstabbing Russia was a horrible idea, but Hitler wouldn't be denied. The main reason they didn't invade the Swiss is because they wanted a reliable place to hold their currency, second and third most likely reasons would probably be the Swiss production of raw materials (That the nazi's needed) and the swiss production of arms and munitions. If you don't believe me, you can actually trace swiss bank accounts (It's difficult, because they are, of course, swiss) opened and held by Nazi interests.

You forgot that Nazy Germany also needed the Swiss train network to exchange material with Italy and that some of the swiss industry sold part used for german war material, such has torpedoes parts (essential for U-boat operations), but the whole contribution amounts to just 0.5% of Nazi war efforts.

Sources : http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/switzerland-second-world-war-ii.html (http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/switzerland-second-world-war-ii.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum)

You are right that the Swiss rifle couldn't be much of an annoyance to the German, but this also mean that the Germans had nothing to fear from the Swiss. See Hitler attacked and tried to conquer every single country that could probably be a credible menace or wouldn't refrain to annex the ones that were handy to pursue it goals, such has poor Norway. But since the Swiss weren't a menace and were unable to declare war to Hitler (the Swiss President is essentially powerless), it wasn't worth the shoot ... and has bonus the Swiss still sold stuff to the Germans and hold Germans bank accounts !

But you also help making my point that Economic deterrence is the biggest factor, that it has saved Swisszerland it can save an AnCap society, especially if it has the following capacities :

- It has absolute free and SECRET banking : Which means that all the dirty guys on earth will try hide their retirement in these banks, has long has many other millions of people fleeing high taxes jurisdictions. Which means that attacking these AnCap society will amount to shooting your self in the foot ... also some other bad guys feet :D Can you imagine the US attacking Swisszerland and threatening to blow up vaults with Russians stuff lol

-Striving Economy : Having a striving economy and a diverse trade means that the event of an attack will be an annoyance to all your trading partners and even maybe for the invaders. Unless one is whiling to pick a fight with a lot of people, attacking a major commercial and industrial centre is not a good idea. PS: I believe that we agree that a place with zero import tax and  zero Every-Imaginable-Dumb-Tax will be a vacuum for all the industry seeking lower cost of production and will be like a huge version of Hong Kong right ?

- No offensive Capabilities : Since the one with big gun and willingness to use them will be the first in the target list, which explain why Hitler atttacked Russia : Because they were a possible threat. Switzerland however was low in the list of priority because they had no means or willingness to join the Allies against Germany ... which the Stalin did ;)

But the since WWII, Switzerland and the world have changed, The Swiss have a striving economy and can afford not only to have each citizen armed and trained with rifle, but can afford anti-tank and anti-aircraft capabilities to each of them, along with bunkers and weapons cache all over place. The German technological edge of WWII is no more, a few hundred dollars RPG and 15$ in AK-47 bullets can finish the day of a tank crew.
You must not overestimate the strength of national army, you see even the US is just capable of bullying third world countries and can soon become incapable of engaging in warfare with China despite the trillions they spend in defense or finish off the Talibans or KO Iran. The technological advance is working against the attacker

[/quote]
You're the one who keeps talking about how paper money (Which is actually more cotton then paper in the US, and plastic almost everywhere else) has no real value. That's just plain inaccurate.
[/quote]

You are sort of right, since these currency are backed by the government power to tax, confiscate and its guns, which explain why the use is still holding some water.

[/quote]
 Just like government backed bills. In antiquity, aluminum was worth more then gold, silver, and bronze. Gold used to be nearly worthless. The argument that precious metals are finite only works when bills aren't finite. Most intelligent governments try to keep bills as finite as possible. Besides. Even governments based on a gold standard had problems with inflation. You see many examples in history.
[/quote]

Actually bills are infinite, since when government can't tax they borrow and this has consequencies. See the US has a 100 trillions unfunded liability and 15 trillions debts to foreign creditor and the US economy is just 14 trillions $ ... so tell me how they are going to tax their way out ? they have all interest of inflating the currency to pay the debt.

The US Treasury also owe the Federal Reserve (I still don't understand how the heck this is possible) circa 14 trillions dollars and the Social Security another 3 trillions in IOU ... they will start to print bills has soon has has they start redeeming this debt or whatever.

Yes the scarcity and unforgeable of gold is what make it valuable in our eyes. But if you have been keeping an open eye, you would have noted that almost every government is destroying its currency due to social program, even the £ or the Euro are going underwater, remember Greece ?

The number of paper money is infinite because government spending and borrowing is infinite, Barack Obama HC bill proved it, along with all the debt and spending of all government over the planet ... there is simply NOT LIMIT

But if there a place on earth were people only accept commodity money (gold or whatever have value) and it is a significant part of the world economy, this will undercut government ability to finance expensive war.

Banking and inflation is the motor of warfare, this is way all country have central banks. ... if you get a free economy somewhere, you will undermine this system by cutting the faith on paper currency
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on March 28, 2010, 01:07:31 pm
Gee, I'm looking at the chart for the quantity of paper money created  in the last few years. If there is evidence of the government showing restraint, it's hard to detect. Perhaps I need some sort of statist.indoctrination to see the "reality."

You say Germany didn't want to invade Switzerland, since they needed banking services and transportation and productive capabilities of Switzerland. Gee, why didn't they just grab those things by force? Answer: they were already available on the free market, as they would be in any AnCap society. So tell me why your hypothetical statist madman would prefer to destroy a thriving AnCap society? I smell something very like a contradiction here; again, I lack the proper dose of statist.indoctrination to see the "reality", I guess.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Sean Roach on March 28, 2010, 01:57:38 pm
I'm reminded of a story told by Dr. Feynman about a trip he took to South America.  He found the students in one country there perfectly able to recite facts as they had been drilled, but poorely equipped to consider what those facts meant.  He'd get the textbook description of how reflections could polarize light, but all expressed suprise and awe when he had them look through polaroid film at the neighboring lake, and the sun shining off of it.

I suspect before he died, he probably felt the same way about the U.S.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: wdg3rd on March 28, 2010, 02:42:35 pm
I seem to notice that spelling errors (or failure to proofread) seem to be directly proportional to support of a government, a military and/or public schools paid for with money stolen from the productive members of the population.  The enemies of anarchism are ignorancing (any noun can be verbed) themselves into hopeful extinction.

My BAC is probably about .16% at present, double the legal limit if I was behind a steering wheel on a public road (I love it when a news item mentions that somebody is arrested for some random non-traffic offense stating "he had a BAC of .12%, well above the legal limit, when the person wasn't driving, which is what that legal limit is defined for -- it gives a clue as to the idiot level of the news media, the governments they pimp for, and the idiots who take the word of either as anything approaching truth).  I go to work in 17 hours.  My liver is stronger than any statist's brain and probably would be smarter even if it wasn't attached to my brain.  (I know when to stop drinking -- a statist never seems to know when to stop being stupid).
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: quadibloc on March 28, 2010, 06:47:51 pm
I seem to notice that spelling errors (or failure to proofread) seem to be directly proportional to support of a government, a military and/or public schools paid for with money stolen from the productive members of the population.
An interesting topic, but for another reason.

In English, spelling errors are common largely because it happens that we have chosen to retain the spelling used by foreign languages used for words we have borrowed from them. So, first we must recognize a word as Latin or Greek or French in origin before we can know which set of rules to use to connect its pronounciation to its spelling. It does not take longer to learn to read English than it does to learn to read Finnish or Russian: but it does take longer to learn to spell it correctly.

Of course, if people do enough reading, they will learn to spell properly almost by osmosis. Perhaps this is why newspapers often sponsor spelling bees.

A more extreme case than English, of course, is Chinese. One does not have to memorize eight thousand characters cold to learn how to read and write Chinese: there are about five hundred basic elements, either single pictures, or meaning-based compounds, which then produce the bulk of the characters by a combination of one element giving the meaning category, and another the sound value. Since there are possible alternate choices for the character representing the sound value, it is possible to write a Chinese word using an incorrect character - the equivalent of a spelling error.

In the old Chinese Empire, only a fortunate few could spend the time learning to read and write, so that they could study the classics and take the civil service examinations. Thus, the Chinese writing system helped to ensure that anyone trying to counterfeit an Imperial order would betray himself through spelling errors.

And our spelling helps employers detect unqualified job applicants who claim false credentials. A legitimate defense of fraud, rather than a support to illegitimate government authority. But complicated writing systems that require a lot of education to use properly have a history as tools of State authority.
Title: The Swiss
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 29, 2010, 09:54:34 pm
The "Shoot Twice" story is actually a reference to a humorous postcard that was sold in Switzerland before and during World War I. It really does exist, and almost every Swiss gun shop seems to have modern versions available for purchase.

I admire the Swiss militia system. It has a lot to recommend it. The vast majority of Swiss citizens have at least a minimum familiarity with firearms. Most Swiss males (excluding the usual 4-F's) serve in the militia and are trained in basic small-unit tactics. If American experience in WWI proved anything, it is that a basic familiarity with firearms and shooting makes for substantially more effective troops, and I expect the Swiss model would result in very effective light infantry units.

The real protection for the Swiss up until the days of the Cold War was the mountains that surround their country. The Alps are substantial mountains, and attacking through narrow mountain passes is never easy. Attacking Switzerland under any circumstances would be a very costly proposition. Even with a few light units and a citizenry that is not trained in arms, Switzerland's terrain features make it virtually impenetrable from the ground, and the mountains offer a great redoubt for guerrillas. Without the willingness to expend huge numbers of men in the process, It has no oil, a little timber, and some nice scenery.Switzerland is just not worth conquering.

During and after the Cold War, the Swiss have been protected primarily by American armored forces in Germany and our nuclear umbrella.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on March 29, 2010, 10:20:27 pm
The American forces in Germany - and over 100 other countries - protect against what, exactly?

How, exactly, does this differ from any other world empire?
Title: What does an AnCap society have to be able to stop militarily to "work?"
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 29, 2010, 11:20:58 pm
First of all, an AnCap society does not have to be able to stop anybody from doing any damage on their territory. The question is: Could an AnCap society keep its citizens safe and/or fight and possibly win a defensive war without a standing army? I'm arguing that a standing army is a necessity, for a number of reasons. Primarily the difficulty of negotiating with property owners and the disincentive to actually fighting created by holding soldiers responsible for the damage caused int he defense. That pretty-much guarantees that there will not be any troops, and certainly not enough to hold off a serious enemy. I've dealt with that elsewhere, so I won't recap here. The second reason is that national armies can buy systems that would never make sense for a militia, like aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, fighter/bombers, etc. These systems have real value, and they are genuine force multipliers. Finally, I don't think enough people will "shoot twice" or "never bend a knee to anyone" to make a difference. People will knuckle under,

As to the question of scenarios: Is anybody arguing that AnCap has to stop a fanatically determined, superior force armed with better weapons and more men?

I will. The Nazis are an excellent example. Rising powers tend to get into scraps with their neighbors. I doubt that this will be any different 1,000 years from now than it was 1,000 years ago. An AnCap Belgium might have held the Nazis off a little longer, but could it have stopped them? Even if the AnCap state had the approximate population level of France, could they have stopped the Nazis? Even if every Frenchman had an anti-tank cannon in his garage and a Thompson by his side, they would have had serious difficulty.

Why? Resistance to a superior force, in most cases, means death. The idea that people will shoot at invaders from every tree and building might sound appealing, until you realize how few people are likely to actually do so. There is a reason that armies organize people into units:People on their own, in a place where explosives are falling from the sky and men with weapons are coming to kill them, will tend to hide rather than fight. Even when they fight, most tend to just spray-and-pray. War is scary, and anybody who has never had somebody with a gun seeking to kill them needs to understand that. "Shoot twice" is a good bluff, but most people will not even shoot once. The ones that do shoot once will tend to be blown to bits pretty-quickly. The people who are in organized militias will probably do a much better job, but not anywhere near as good a job as people who spend their entire day training and preparing for this sort of thing.

Thus, the problem with the Fort Lewis example: Specialized MP units spend every day doing PT, training to fight rear-guard actions, and learning all of the latest and greatest techniques for causing mayhem. They also spend a lot of time mentally preparing themselves to fight. Normal citizens do not. Most people just want to live their lives, go to work, go home, have a beer, and watch the game. Sure, they might head to the woods and do some hunting periodically, or head down to the range with a few friends. This is not the equivalent of PT every morning, exercises every week, and constant training.

Normal people are not going to fight in anywhere near the numbers that a lot of people seem to be projecting unless there is some sort of draft.

The jihadist insurgency is another scenario that most of the people in here seem to have glossed over. Terrorists do not need 300 IQ points to strap a bomb to themselves. They just need a demo expert and the will to do so. Terrorists have not used WMD's yet for a few simple reasons, but primarily the fact that any group that did would be hunted to the ends of the Earth. When they use them, they don't want to hit one city: They want to hit twenty. That way, the strike has a real impact before their lives are basically over. Aum Shinrikyo tried to use them. Iran has all-but said that they will equip Hezbollah jihadists in the US with such weapons in the event of an invasion. An AnCap society without such weapons as a deterrent force would give terrorist nations every incentive to equip jihadists with NBC arms, given that the AnCap society will not be able to strike back in-kind.

Of course, we don't need to have foreigners doing the terrorizing. There are plenty of domestic nutcases that, given access to WMD, would probably use them. I keep citing Ted Turner with a nuke, because he happens to be one of the nuttier environmentalists out there. Consider the ALF or ELF with a bio-weapon? Or forget the WMD, let's just talk high explosives. A car packed with Semtex can kill a lot of people. So can suicide bombers. There are not a lot of ways to defend against these people, since they have to be willing to kill themselves in the process, anyway. Who knows what sorts of domestic disputes will suddenly be settled with high explosives when they are available at the corner store?

Finally, on the saleable terrorist watch-list/camera network: Very slick. If we ever go AnCap, you will have my first few gold-backed investment dollars.
Title: Statists?
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 29, 2010, 11:55:03 pm
Shades of gray are important. The United States is not the same as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia because it has a government. They may both use force to compel their citizens, but there is a big difference between taxing you to pay for a road, and charging your family for the bullet the local gulag-operator used to shoot you. Terms like "statist" are basically a way of saying "I don't need to argue with you, because you are equivalent to Hitler."

I don't think anybody here is defending government as a good, moral, efficient or particularly effective institution. The difference of opinion is over whether a tiny amount of government (in this case, an army,) is a necessary evil.

So yes, I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to force my fellow citizens to fund an army, because without it we would probably not exist. I don't believe shunning is going to be anywhere near as effective an enforcement mechanism as many AnCap fans do, so I think we need a police force and a court system to handle irreconcilable disputes between citizens. I also think we need cops to handle investigations in to who shot whom.

I believe that if we don't have a tiny bit of essential government, we will not have AnCap: We will have Somalia. Chaos, not freedom.
Title: Re: What does an AnCap society have to be able to stop militarily to "work?"
Post by: sams on March 30, 2010, 12:07:47 am
As to the question of scenarios: Is anybody arguing that AnCap has to stop a fanatically determined, superior force armed with better weapons and more men?

I will. The Nazis are an excellent example. Rising powers tend to get into scraps with their neighbors. I doubt that this will be any different 1,000 years from now than it was 1,000 years ago. An AnCap Belgium might have held the Nazis off a little longer, but could it have stopped them? Even if the AnCap state had the approximate population level of France, could they have stopped the Nazis? Even if every Frenchman had an anti-tank cannon in his garage and a Thompson by his side, they would have had serious difficulty.

Why? Resistance to a superior force, in most cases, means death. The idea that people will shoot at invaders from every tree and building might sound appealing, until you realize how few people are likely to actually do so. There is a reason that armies organize people into units:People on their own, in a place where explosives are falling from the sky and men with weapons are coming to kill them, will tend to hide rather than fight. Even when they fight, most tend to just spray-and-pray. War is scary, and anybody who has never had somebody with a gun seeking to kill them needs to understand that. "Shoot twice" is a good bluff, but most people will not even shoot once. The ones that do shoot once will tend to be blown to bits pretty-quickly. The people who are in organized militias will probably do a much better job, but not anywhere near as good a job as people who spend their entire day training and preparing for this sort of thing.

I don't know if you took a look at the recent history but .... invasion wars are getting less frequent and genocidal wars are getting even more scarce  ::)

The Nazi nearly won WWII due to their technological edge over the French and GB at the beginning of the conflict, but has the war went on, Allies started catching against up with the Axis forces : GB radar system won them the battle of Britain, then the RAF got long range bomber powerful enough to bomb German cities to oblivion

In the Eastern front, the initial Wermatch advantage was quickly inverted when the Russian got some proto-RPG and a new tank ... which out gunned the Panzer that gunned down France and Poland in 39, while U-boats are in get lets effective ... Same in the pacific theatre, with the Japanese German fighter Zero got gunned down after the Americans built a better and heavily armed fighter

You can see that there is a pattern here : War become difficult has the technological gap get thinner.

At the current technological level, no national army is capable of invading another country and occupying unless it has the support of at least a fraction of the local population, cite me one your ''Fanatical invasion''

We can have an example of a national army failing to invade a ''anarchist'' society is what happened in Somalia, where despite US support, Ethiopia failed to occupy it and pacify the place. Same of Irak, where the US is having a difficult time.

Wars of invasion are getting very expensive, so even the US in the present configuration can only afford to bully third world countries despite all its might

Thus, the problem with the Fort Lewis example: Specialized MP units spend every day doing PT, training to fight rear-guard actions, and learning all of the latest and greatest techniques for causing mayhem. They also spend a lot of time mentally preparing themselves to fight. Normal citizens do not. Most people just want to live their lives, go to work, go home, have a beer, and watch the game. Sure, they might head to the woods and do some hunting periodically, or head down to the range with a few friends. This is not the equivalent of PT every morning, exercises every week, and constant training.

We can agree that a libertarian society will have a ''security industry'', Black Water style companies of men whose work is to provide safety and master the art of combat. Since if there is not police, these companies will be the ones providing safety for individuals, companies, banks and the kind. These will the ones with heavy weaponry and mental preparation

The jihadist insurgency is another scenario that most of the people in here seem to have glossed over. Terrorists do not need 300 IQ points to strap a bomb to themselves. They just need a demo expert and the will to do so. Terrorists have not used WMD's yet for a few simple reasons, but primarily the fact that any group that did would be hunted to the ends of the Earth. When they use them, they don't want to hit one city: They want to hit twenty. That way, the strike has a real impact before their lives are basically over. Aum Shinrikyo tried to use them. Iran has all-but said that they will equip Hezbollah jihadists in the US with such weapons in the event of an invasion. An AnCap society without such weapons as a deterrent force would give terrorist nations every incentive to equip jihadists with NBC arms, given that the AnCap society will not be able to strike back in-kind.


Why does terrorist exist ? The US is victim of terrorism because of its foreign policy around the world, has GB was victim of IRA terrorism because of its Irish policies, the same from Russia because of its Chechenia policies.

So why does Belgium, Brazil, Perou or Equador are not victim of terrorism ? I don't the whole crap that Terrorist are just illogical. Terrorism is a form of political statement, if there is no statement to be made, there is not terrorism.

A special case is Israel, which is the exception that confirm the rule, but only because the mere existence of Israel and the fact that the Israeli choose to live among those who hate them is part of the problem.

Of course, we don't need to have foreigners doing the terrorizing. There are plenty of domestic nutcases that, given access to WMD, would probably use them. I keep citing Ted Turner with a nuke, because he happens to be one of the nuttier environmentalists out there. Consider the ALF or ELF with a bio-weapon? Or forget the WMD, let's just talk high explosives. A car packed with Semtex can kill a lot of people. So can suicide bombers. There are not a lot of ways to defend against these people, since they have to be willing to kill themselves in the process, anyway. Who knows what sorts of domestic disputes will suddenly be settled with high explosives when they are available at the corner store?

Sure there will always be nuts and loons among us, but loons tend to try to attack defenceless targets :
Do you ever saw a gun massacre at a NRA gun show ? maniacs tend to choose ''gun free zones'' to perpetrate their acts :

such has the Fort Hood shooting ... at a base were there were no weapons :o

But there is a case were private iniciative defeat loons and lunatics : Body Guards for controversial personalities ,for Banks and cash convoys.

Heinlein Libertarian, do you agree that a free society will have private security agencies like we have now ?

And also do we agree that the biggest deterrent is economic, like Bastiat said : If goods don't cross frontiers, armies will.

Since a libertarian society will be 100% Free Trade, almost all the possible belligerent will be commercial partners.

Do we agree that countries with economic ties are less likely to go to war ?

SO I believe that I answered the question of how a libertarian society will defend itself : BY FREE TRADE WITH ALL

EDA: The problem with all this debate about the ''defence of a libertarian society'' is that people are making a parallel between two completely different things :

1- Wars of extermination were fought in the 19 century, because it was due the rising protectionism, getting you troopers over the border was the only way to acquire markets and minerals.

2- Nazi Germany, the last success one successful at a full blown barbaric campaign conquest, had the edge over its enemies.

3- Terrorist and enemies are created by the foreign policies with countries with military delusions, particularly the US. The role of the US military is no more to protect the US but to patrol the planet and ''project power'' ... which has been a complete and abject failure. We can all agree that the US could defend itself with 1/10 of the current capacity

So these 3 point doesn't match a libertarian society in the following terms :

1- A libertarian society will by definition have free trade, which mean that the incentive to mount an army and invade is lower and also there is the risk of blow-back since many countries may be trading with said society

2- Has technology advance, individuals can defend themselves easily and more effectively. it is easier to defend oneself now than in 1920, which mean that even in the most chaotic part of the world, such has Somalia and Afghanistan, locals are armed in such a way that it is almost impossible that an invader conquer the place. So we can assume that a libertarian society will have more and better weaponry, making occupation a pain in the ass

3- A libertarian society have no foreign policy ... so like Switzerland, it will likely have no die hard enemies, which doesn't mean that there won't be lune. So the whole Jihadi scenario start to become less credible
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: El Hombre Malo on March 30, 2010, 07:26:26 am
Hummm...a few factors that I think should be taken into consideration when talking about a hypotetical conflict between an AnCap society and a foreign enemy.

-Infiltration by agent provocateurs: AnCap societies don't really have borders nor restrictions regarding who can migrate. Let's say the enemy isn't so much bent on conquering the territory and enslaving the population (really? who declares a war to get slaves any more?) but simply wants to disrupt the society to a point where the population adherence to libertarian ideals start to vanish. And I dont just mean small or big scale terrorism but organiced actions that renders shunning innefective repeatedly, encouraging some members of the society to initiate force, look for scapegoats, etc...

-Dissension: a foreign enemy can exploit the feelings of those who feel the AnCap society have failed them, as a system. Be it Those who tried but failed, those whose set of skills can't earn them enough to make a decent living, the usual bunch of lazy or reckless who cant see they are their our worst enemy... Most posts in this thread assume a strict adherence to AnCap values by all the population, yet enough of them can dissent and be lured/funded by enemies of an AnCap society to disrupt it. Again, since we are talking about a purely market based society, disrupting the effects of shunning seems to me the most obvious and direct way, creating one or more paralell markets within the same society.

-Corporate warfare... while I dont share the faith most libertarians have in the inner working of corporations (having worked for a pair of large ones, Ive noticed them to be even more corrupt in their inner bureocracy than, say, local councils and municipalities), I share the view many expressed here about their importance and role in an hypothetical conflict. And I think HK example is a good one. See, China stopped really caring about communism around the 70s, but they do care about state control of information. When they took control over HK they didnt want to destroy it nor turn it into a little cozy socialist town. The only thing they didnt like about HK was its free press (as free as the british had it, given the fact that freedom of press is not a right recognized by any law of the United Kingdom, but something you can use at the Crown's will, that is, until someone from Palace tells you to shut up... try shipping porn over the Royal Mail and see. But I digress).

Did China impose censure over HK right away? no, they simply established enough strong ties with key HK corporations and those corporations got even bigger making bussines with the goverment. So when the media started to be shunned by big corps as a punishment for negative portrayal of the central goverments, profit driven media wisened up and started to get tamer and tamer...until it was the own HK goverment who started passing laws restricting free press. Now China has a profitable AND silent HK.

See, corporations have no ideals. Individual entrepeneurs might go against their own economical interest while pursuing what they think is ethically right. Corporations wont. Because corporations are owned by shareholders who may be decent persons but ultimatelly just want their profit share. The board makes the decissions and their only real concern is how to make better numbers the next quarter. There are countless dirty maneuvers a corporation big enough can use to desestabilice a market or create a temporary monopoly. Ever heard of the Japanese dumping on south american markets?

And nothing prevents a foreign player from heavily investing in your AnCap economy. Since you had such a lenghty conversation about Ammunition, imagine a foreign goverment funding a big ammo factory within your borders. So competitive, since it's main goal is not to make the most money, that it drives other big players out of the game and just leave small niche companies that cater to fringe tastes and specialities. Now imagine the conflict becomes violent and the people you were counting on to provide you with ammo refuses to entirely, not even negotiates. Apply that to bigger issues like missiles. You have to fire the damm things and it turns out youve been buying them from a company working for your enemy. And now remember what happened to all those french missiles argentine bought. It doesnt need to be so machiavelical and devious, even... Your enemy just need offer your weapon provider a deal so good it would be against self interest to refuse it. And before you tell me goverments would be bankrupt, please let me remind you goverments are still the biggest owners of gold and silvers, and goverments own profitable corporations too.

And that takes me to another key point... not a military war waged by a foreign national power, but how do you defend your market against corporations working from protected markets. there is a reason XIX century germans called traditional liberalism the "kick to the ladder strategy", claiming Great Britain only demanded open markets after centuries of protectionism and a head start on industrialitation had made its domestic market strong and healthy. A Corporation operating from a captive market have a wider range of maneuver when competing on foreign open markets (Africa is a good example of that). AnCap entrepeneurs would compete on equal terms on the open market against companies whose local turf is protected. Those companies can indulge in much more reckless maneuvers, dumping prices, driving competitors out of bussines and buying them out in the end, because they can count on the domestic market to cover the losses. Heavily protected Japan corporations did it when IMF policies opened the south cone markets, and local consumer goods manufacturers were wiped out and bought. How long would it take for AnCap entrepeneurs to demand a certain degree of protection, or even worse, to organize, thus hindering competivity? How much until someone initiates violence when shunning doesnt work or damage the "aggressor" in economical malpractice?

Most scenarios given in this thread count too much on the infalible and staunch allegiance of AnCap society inhabitants to its principles, and on a sort of inevitable inferiority of whatever statalists attempt, based solely on its moral bankrupcy and a preassumpted inneficiency. I understand why you think Libertarianism is Right. But Right doesnt make Might.


(customary excuses for whatever typo or weird aberration of the english language, given my condition of non native speaker)
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 30, 2010, 09:07:06 am
@:MaesePorras@yahoo.com

You are making some fair and interesting points, and will try to address some of them, but I would like that it is taken in consideration that none of the solutions I may give are ''indestructible'' ... and only experience can give almost definitive answers

- Infiltration by agent provocateurs : While the absence of a government is one feature of anarchy, this doesn't mean that people will be lone wolfs. We are ''social animals'' and this libertarian society will be no exception, except that you will have a greater freedom to associate with people for all the activities that you might imagine, you can freely choose who to trade, talk, associate, employ, have religious ceremonies, etc. So the This society will have individuals who can be associated has they which, and I can presume that if the agent provocateurs involve anything above propaganda, such has acts of sabotage to try to create conflicts  ... those people, individually or in the association of their choice, can then deal with those fellah ... assuming that the plot can be discovered.

-Dissension: There are very few or any solution to the internal dissension, unless that the members of the libertarian society benefit from the state of affairs. The best hope is that the free trade policy create a great economy, in a huge version or HK & Singapore, and that people provide for their security, being it by arming themselves or by hiring people to guaranty their security.

-Corporate warfare:There are some factors in a Free market that may prevent corporate welfare which are that there is no restriction to entry the market and there is no way to keep competitors out. All case of corporate monopoly or manipulation involve having an authority to impose it upon others : A government. In the absence of a government  have doubt that corporations will have so much leverage, since they can't force the costumer to buy their products, which they could do buy taxation, see GM. I believe that because of the intense competition, corporations will tend to smaller than they are currently

Quote
And nothing prevents a foreign player from heavily investing in your AnCap economy. Since you had such a lenghty conversation about Ammunition, imagine a foreign goverment funding a big ammo factory within your borders. So competitive, since it's main goal is not to make the most money, that it drives other big players out of the game and just leave small niche companies that cater to fringe tastes and specialities.

The good news is that we will have cheaper ammunition courtesy of the tax payers  ;D and that to drive its competitor out of market it would need to saturate the market with such a quantity of ammunition that we might actually have enough for any conflict.  ;D But the bad news for the person who made this plan doesn't end there, since despite the fact that almost all war were fought in countries without ammunitions factories, few are the wars which ended because of lack of ammunition. Unless this state control the rest of the globe or had put all the others manufacturers of the globe out of business, the demand for ammunition will create a market. The greater point is that an AnCap society won't be an ''auto-sufficient'' society, it will be open to trade with everyone ... or at least no bastard will prevent from buying cheap bullets from the Chineses.

Quote
Now imagine the conflict becomes violent and the people you were counting on to provide you with ammo refuses to entirely, not even negotiates. Apply that to bigger issues like missiles. You have to fire the damm things and it turns out youve been buying them from a company working for your enemy. And now remember what happened to all those french missiles argentine bought

Incompetence is not a crime ... so yes some idiot may buy a missile which can be deactivated by the manufacturer. But since I remember that our AnCap friends are pretty much opposed to any form of patent, this may not be possible ... but you may end up with a ''open source'' modular missile, which is manufactured with equipment from hundreds of small manufacturer and which the user can customize at will  ;D Modular and customizable platforms are already used by many industries and so despite any kind of central planning. For example you have the M16 civilians rifle in the US, which have thousand of companies manufacturing interchangeable and customizable parts. Electronic components are also an great example, IBM and Compaq doesn't build a PC from beggining to end, but subcontract or buy part from other firms ... one may build only the Processor, the other only Hard Drive another CD-drive and so forth. Heavy weaponery industry seems to be the last part of the industry which is almost ''closed-design'' maybe because the main clients are governments and so there is not incentives to innovations

And before you tell me goverments would be bankrupt, please let me remind you goverments are still the biggest owners of gold and silvers, and goverments own profitable corporations too.
 
A government ''declare bankruptcy'' when they collapse due to extensive economic and social hardship, and most of the Western countries are approaching this critical point. almost all have debts approaching 100% of GDP generally because of entitlement programs, social security, wars and even if they own all the gold of the world, it won't be enough since gold being merely a means of exchange, it is not helpful if there is nothing to buy, which can happen if the world economy collapse under the weight of government spending.Actually We don't expect all to collapse, some will be enough.
Government actually subsidize most of the ''profitable'' corporations, if not most of them. There is not such a thing like a ''public investissment'' it is always money thrown out of the window

A Corporation operating from a captive market have a wider range of maneuver when competing on foreign open markets (Africa is a good example of that)

False, I'm African, specifically Angolan and I can tell you that our problem is NOT FREE TRADE lol
We suffer from what I can call a double lock :

1- TAX and INFLATION : most all African country have prohibitively high import and export tariff even among fellow African countries  :-\
Because the trader never pay the import tax, he simply transfer it to the consumer, the import tax is in reality a tax on the African citizen sometime from 30 to 100%. This make the accumulation of capital and importation of tools to develop economic activities, such has second european machine tools, car or processed product VERY difficult.
And even if you manage to get the material, you enough internal red tape and inflation to loose up to 40 of profits. Then if you manage to get something to export, you face another 30% export tax ... which mean that your product is not competitive  >:(

2- PROPERTY RIGHTS : Most African countries have a system of government ownership of all land and especially anything that can sold for profit ... and unless you are lucky to on some civilized parts, such like Botswana or South Africa ... you can't : Farm, mine, log, or do anything that may generate income on any land ... or just do some lame substance agriculture >:(
The worst is that the government is inflexible, so on top of all the above mentioned problems, you end up with the central government providing almost all the income on oil or anything that a foreign company can mine... and most of the citizenry live of the droplets that fall from the government numerous institutions ... my country have a 30% unemplyement rate ...

So I see no Free Trade collateral damage here >:(

You will be right if countries like Tanzania, which tried to make important substitution industries weren't has poor and desolate has us  :-[

The bottom line is that protectionist policies are a scam, the one that get rip off are the tax payers, which are the ones who in fact subsidize all the corporations and has far has history is concerned, this policy is a failure. the only thing that had worked so far is free trade and free entreprise
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Sean Roach on March 30, 2010, 10:26:49 am
Okay, granted I'm a minarchist, (which I feel addresses these issues,) so bear with me.
Sams, I don't feel you successfully addressed some of the issues brought up by MaesePorras.

Infiltration-  This is much what some of us have suspected and suggested here when we suddenly got two very pro-central-military people in this very thread.
No, you can't prevent it, except through vigilance, or compromising your standards.

Dissension- again, not something you can prevent.  Actually, the story on this board, "The Probability Broach", and its sequel "American Zone", are good explorations of both the above points.  Of course, the good guys kill the bad guys at the end.

On the point of parallel economies.  No.  Sorry, but no.  YES.  Parallel economies WILL develop.  Someone messes up once, and his brother will help him out.  He'll get a lower wage job from someone who just doesn't care.  The problem is he will be remembered.  If you can't keep your promises with one group, someone MIGHT take a chance with you, but you're working from a weakened bargaining position.  You won't be trusted, and that trust will translate into lower salaries, and very little buying on credit, (which is probably for the best anyway.)

Corporate Warfare- you got me.
I CAN see a giant from a non-an-cap country overtaking an an-cap corporation via subtle government support.  Not enough to qualify as force, but enough to tip the scales in favor of the foreign giant.
This also applies to minarchism.  Any time one giant can "game" the system by stockpiling wealth, and then dumping it to cause financial hardship to another group, this applies.
Wealth could be in available trained personnel, ready-manufactured/refined/extracted product, or just enough cash to buy things until business gets back to normal.
Of course, I could also see aggressor insurance policies that included a price-fixing rider.

Personally, if I found a company was in the control of an aggressor group, I'd argue that company was part of the aggressor group, and take some of the damage out of their equipment.
That is, after the bullets started flying, I'd be at the recently-locked gates of that ammunition factory with a pair of bolt cutters and a team of displaced factory worker volunteers.
I MIGHT see fit to save any profits, less a management fee, to hand over to the proper owners afterward, but I'd probably be working at cost+living expenses...so no profit.

Now, as to an open-source missile.  Go over to SchlockMercenary.com, and scroll back about a week.  There is an interesting comic where a girl shut down a security camera with a 2d barcode.
Imagine a chip, probably an image processor, with a coded-in achilles heel.  If it sees a certain pattern, it switches to early pentium arithmetic.  Looks good most of the time, but the errors are there.
Suddenly your open-source missile can't recognize its target, and might actually decide the nearest water tower is what it was aimed at.

Sabotage through one chip, provided it uses, and needs, a "pure" signal that can be manipulated to the enemies ends, (that barcode printed on the top of the troop carriers, for instance.)
The answer to this is equally simple.  No one supplier.  Get your missiles standardized on the externals, but use whatever for the internals.  Perhaps some have NVidia graphics processors.  Perhaps some use ATI.  Some might even use some chinese part.  Some use one OS, some use another.  No one achilles heel.
It might help to have it all the firmware and circuit diagrams be open-source and vetted too, but open-source doesn't mean as much unless someone who understands it actually takes the time to look for backdoors and exploitable vulnerabilities.



Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on March 30, 2010, 03:02:28 pm
Many of the possible weaknesses of an AnCap society apply even more so to that greedy maniacal homicidal maniac state which you propose. There's always going to be that fifth column of people who think wiping out a free people is wrong, and they'll be throwing sand in your gears. The more you rely upon coercion and nastiness to get what you want, the more enemies you make, both internal and external.

One thing every free marketeer learns early: you meet the same people on the way down as you meet on the way up. Statists fancy themselves immune to the laws of karma, and believe that their use of force trumps everything else, but the bill always comes due. Ask the rulers of the former USSR what they think. Ask the current rulers of China why they are trying so hard to keep a lid on dissent; why an estimated 20 million Chinese have already figured out how to "climb the wall" and breach the firewall.

So, by all means, keep on with your belief that might makes right; you'll be taught the error of your ways.

Anytime you want to trade gold to me for $20.67 per ounce, just let me know. Ask yourself why you retain so much faith in an entity which managed to destroy 97% of the value of the dollar in one century.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: quadibloc on March 30, 2010, 06:40:15 pm
So why does Belgium, Brazil, Perou or Equador are not victim of terrorism ?
Actually, until quite recently, Peru had a very serious problem with terrorism - a domestic terrorist group following Maoist ideas, which had a proclivity for rape: the Shining Path movement.

So, by all means, keep on with your belief that might makes right; you'll be taught the error of your ways.
It took many decades for the Soviet Union to fall, and how long mainland China - or even North Korea - will last is not yet known. The imperfections of the industrialized democracies are more than tolerable if they help protect us from falling into such a pit of agony.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: El Hombre Malo on March 30, 2010, 08:54:01 pm
sams:

Of course, you have a better understanding of the inner working of african markets. I mentioned the case as an example of what the germans called "the kick to the ladder". See, african countries main export is both natural resources and extensive agricultural products (I understand I am talking about Africa as one entity while I know there are exceptions, not trying to be simplistic, just trying to exemplarize). What africa need the most is machinery to improve its economical prowess and evolve from a short term sustenance model to a consumer goods economy. So they have to buy abroad and borrow money, also abroad. Western companies are more than happy to provide african countries with usually sub-par equipment...at a high price? Why can they ask for such abusive prices? Because often the money borrowed from western countries comes with limits in how you spend it. Of course I lend you money to buy mining equipment... if you buy it from a company in my country. Yet it becomes more perverse... The lending countries usually have protected markets with subsidized agriculture. Maybe african country X would be better off selling wheat or tomatos to european markets, yet those products are heavily tariffed, so they have to grow products that might not be the most lucrative choice. That is, unless a foreign company buys the land. Look at the korean deals in Madagascar and cry.

Domestic corruption, inneficiency and malpraxis are also a factor, but more often than not these are also influenced by foreign goverments and companies. I African markets are heavily intervened by (often corrupt) goverments, but that doesnt mean they ar eprotected, becaus ethe intervention does not pursue the strengthening of the market, just the enrichment of a few and the control of the population. I dont subscribe the myth of all african problems deriving exclusively from colonialism and foreign interference, but it is a decisive factor. I have ideas about what could be done on my side of the deal (european markets) but might be too lengthy to expose here.

Sean: I see you agree with me that organized dissension and infiltration can be a though subject to deal within the context of a "no initiation of force" society. On the subject of paralell economies that avoid/diminish shunning mechanisms, we disagree. If it was the case of a few individuals on a small town context, where everyone can keep a good track of everyone, I'd agree with you. But not if we were talking of a bigger pond. I am a very social person and I dont even know the name of more than 25% of the people I see  on a daily basis, much less the ones I do bussines with once every few weeks or months. It would take a huge dedicated agency to inform and remind everyone of the misdeeds of every individual for most people to enforce the shunning policy on a city like Madrid (about 6 million people metropolitan area). I dont see how that could be run for profit. Moreso, without any kind of personal registry, even if such an agency existed it would be quite easy to dodge it.

On the issue of corporate warfare and your supported course of action... Even if you suspected a company to be an enemy player, you would had to be the one initiating force. You would have to convince a large enough group of people that you are right or else you would be subjected to shunning. Even in that case, that group would certainly face the opposition of those that think you are compromising libertarian ideology. Any of the competitors of the targeted company is perceived in the slightest as a part of your action and you have accusations of corporate hostile praxis hurled at you. Whatever the outcome... more dissension.

Terry: I never subscribed the notion of "Might make Right". I actually prefer to be Right, however mighty or weak it makes me, just for the sake of precisely the same karmik laws you mention. But I dont think Right makes Might either. Would it be true, history books would'nt be so sad so often. And as for faith... count me off the people who have faith in anything. I believe what I do because I came to these conclusions through study and experience, but I am more than ready to change my mind, I do it every day, when I learn some more.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Sean Roach on March 30, 2010, 09:41:32 pm
MaesePorras,

http://www.equifax.com/
Do you know what your credit score is?  (First non-sponsored link in Google on a search for "credit reporting agencies...third sponsored link.)
It does require some way of identifying people for a database.  In pre-computer times it might have been achieved through a letter of recommendation.  Say, I get letters from my pastor, old school principal, and maybe a few other noteworthy individuals, identifying me as an upstanding person, good for my debts, good for my word.  It also works, to a lesser degree, for the mobile.  A letter of recommendation from my pastor, for instance, might stand me in good stead elsewhere where that church is held in high esteem.  A letter from my bank to neighboring banks might simply say I've never stiffed that bank, always honored my obligations, and have a record of business with them going back 20+ years.  Such a letter could even be dated, with old letters holding far less value than more recent letters, as I might have stiffed them, or turned away from obligations since it was written.

And on the second point to me, I predicated that response on, (a.) foreign power controlled ammo supplier froze everyone else out of business, creating the possibility of an ammo shortage, possibly also buying up the equipment of the former competitors, (b.) the same foreign power then initiates force against individual sovereignty in the whole region, (c.) the power then closed the shop to deny ammo to the freedom fighters, (d.) there are still ammo makers available, who want to make ammo for their neighbors, so they can resist the takeover, but who lack the tools, or at least the tools in one location, to do so.
Yeah, at the absolute minimum, I'd have to convince the former factory workers to back me in taking over the factory so as to pour lead for our fellows.  I might also have to convince the various militias it was acceptable to buy it.


Please understand this is NOT an endorsement of anyones product.  I chose a credit reporting agency for an example essentially at random.  I have never used that service.  I just wanted as close to a real-world example of what I was thinking as I could recall.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: El Hombre Malo on March 30, 2010, 11:14:35 pm
Sean:

I dont see how needing the recomendation of certain individuals or corporations is any less dangerous that a state sponsiored registry. Aknowledging such registries can be mishandled by inept or malicious unchecked public agencies, I dont know why I have to expect any less from individuals who might have vested interests in what they say about me. I might have never stiffed my bank, but I might have slept with the directos wife. Or daughter. Or dog. My unorthodox views might prompt the pastor to have a negative oppinion about my character. Or, again, I might have slept with... etc. Or I might have broken his 7 years winning streak at the pie eating contest. Or laughed at the worst moment when he wasnt actually making a joke. Or, to the contrary, I can be an excelent people's person and enjoy very positive reviews, so possitive they might be deceiving and mask my flaws, or make someone forget to mention I once raped a girl-but-you-know-he-was-young-and-she-was-such-a-slut. And then theres nepotism and the such.

I actually like people and find most to be decent human beigns with no ill wishes towards their fellow men. Except no one is safe from temptation. Some years ago a friend had a big problem with someone, I dont remember if it was his boss or a family member, but whatever it was it had my friend devastated and it was something of economical nature. Another friend worked on a security firm, as head of a department that dealt with money transfers. As such he had access to the "Registro de morosos", roughly translated as "debtors registry". Banks, insurance companies and most companies that dealt with money transfers and lending have created a private agency to share warnings about what companies and individuals to avoid. And it works fine... if you are in it you will have a lot of trouble for anything, from oppening a new account to mortaging your house to getting a loan to start that bussines you allways talk about to your family but they never really believed you would actually get on with it. Fair enough, you'd think. Except One friend told the other "Do you want me to put his name on that list?".

"You can do that?"

"Sure, just keep him a few hours in it and he would appear there for years, making him much more compliant on your case, because he wont be getting any money anywhere else"

"Is that legal?"

"Not really illegal since this is a private list... he can sue but would take him years and it is easy to cover your tracks. So most people are just happy to be out of it and dont look much further... Ive never done it but I have colleages who have and seen it done by other companies often. I wouldnt tell you if this guy wasnt such a bastard".

One never asked for it and the other later regretted he had even suggested it. Later in life I've learned of other instances when this list was unscrupulously used by individuals. To punish others, to make them sell cheap, to get ahead in bussines. I am sure this mechanism works fine 99% of the time, I just dont want to be on the 1% that gets kicked in the balls like it. Sure, with similar public mechanisms you can still get screwed by the human factor but at least you have the leverage of voting whoever is in charge out. Or demanding safenets that no private agency would agree on since its profit driven.


Regarding the warfare subject... I agree with you that when the plot is discovered, actions can be taken even if I believe there would be a good deal of dissension about it. But its the period before that, while you still need to prove for a fact that they are the enemy, what strikes me as overly disruptive of an AnCap society. I had not even mentioned other variables, like companies who arent actually enemies but that think its in their best self interest not to provide ammunition to freedom fighters, or even worse, sell it to the enemy. You might argue that as entrepeneurs it would never be in their best interest to agree to such deals but then; a) Statalist goverments can be very generous if needed to be, and b) not everyone would agree on what their best self-interest would be. Or much more simply put... not every entrepeneur would want to die defending libertarian principles. Many entrepeneurs would migrate to AnCap societies to benefit from its free market enviroment, but would flee or bend their knees when the stakes are too high. After all, not-so-free markets allow for less profit but it is a still a profit. The defence of an AnCap society rests solely on the shoulders of true believers willing to bet it all on a all-or-nothing scenario. But as I said on my first post on this thread, I dont think it would come to open violent conflict, at least not until statalist maneuvers had forced AnCap to either compromise its ideals or break into factions based on how to approach the foreign induced problems.

One subject that I think has'nt been adressed is how would the mentioned guerrilla war against an ocupying army would work. While I still not believe armed conflict or military ocupation is the best way to destroy an AnCap society from abroad, it has been mentioned about volunteer millitia making life hell for the invaders. Examples were givem, like the backlash against the red coats after Concord or present day Afghan millitia.

But both examples bypass the fact that neither was a libertarian millitia. American rebels were more than ready to initiate force against non-combatants like loyalist owners, something a libertarian millitia wouldnt do. And Afghans loot, kill and basically impose a reign of terror to control their strongholds, silencing violently any dissension. Would the initiation of force be allowed against those who colaborated with the invaders, even if they though it was in their best self interest? Taken active millitia members wouldnt be able to work their bussines or jobs, how would they sustain? If donations were not enough would seizure of certain individual's property be kosher? Even the most idolized freedom movements and guerrillas worked through violence and imposed their will on others, even innocent bystanders and neutral parties that just wanted to adapt to context the best they could. When fighting for a national idea, it is very easy to compromise any other ideological position. But when you fight for the right to be a libertarian, can you stop beign a libertarian?
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 31, 2010, 07:57:53 am
@El Hombre Malo:

Yes there are not one united Africa, we have : northern Arab Magreb, Saharan Negro-Muslim, Central Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa, factor such has colonial heritage and whether your country s run is by a dictator and a lot of thing in between.

But we can safely say that people in most countries suffer from the similar problems, so let me first address your points and try to present what I believe is true :

Quote
I dont subscribe the myth of all african problems deriving exclusively from colonialism and foreign interference, but it is a decisive factor.

You just happen to subscribe to an alternate version of the ''Don't matter how ... it is the WHITE MAN FAULT !''. According to another version African hydroelectric power plants provide electricity to Japan thanks to a satellite link or that the US invented AIDS to prevent Africans from getting wealthy


Sure Colonialism had many effects, but most importantly by the cultural and institutional heritage that Africans have received from their former Europeans Overlord. The newly independent African nations inherited these social dysfunction and sometime prolonged them by having ''special friendship'' with their formal colonies.

For example the DR Congo have a pretty advanced social structure at the advent of independence in 1960, a vibrant intellectual live with good schools and universities, a good economy and even a nuclear reactor. In the other hand, across the border in Angola, even today the social structure and intellectual capital is inferior to the Congolese one. Reason ? DR Congo was colonized by the Belgium and Angola was by the Portuguese ... so each inherited the best and the worst of their former overlords. This ain't nothing to do with any nefarious plan ... it just like the US inherited most of its cultural in-heritage from Great Britain.

Quote
So they have to buy abroad and borrow money, also abroad

The second half of this sentence is false. The truth is that most savings are internal, which mean that like in any other society, some African prefer to safe resources to invest and those internal savings are not subject to the Evil White European Capitalist Pig  ;D
If you talk about government, than yes they are the one who borrow abroad.

Quote
Western companies are more than happy to provide african countries with usually sub-par equipment...at a high price? Why can they ask for such abusive prices? Because often the money borrowed from western countries comes with limits in how you spend it

Only if you consider the case of African government borrowing ... which are already inefficient by nature. The civil society, which constitute the only productive sector of the economy, makes investissment using internal savings.

Sure you can say that even if the money is fruit of internal savings western companies can still sell the products at prohibitive price ... and you will be wrong anyway since Chinese companies can sell at lower price or you can buy a second hand equipment. At least 70% of the taxis and utilities heavy duty automotive in my country are bough second hand in Europe and the US and most of the tools used for the struggling small manufacture are manufactured in China ... poor people buy cheaply  ;D

Quote
The lending countries usually have protected markets with subsidized agriculture
You have a point, but African countries also have huge tariff barriers among each other arround 35%.
These inter-African barriers destroy incentive to create an inter-African market, of at least 700 million people. You know it is more expensive to move goods from Johannesburg to Addis-Abeba than from Beijing, New York or any other part of the world.

Quote
Maybe african country X would be better off selling wheat or tomatos to european markets, yet those products are heavily tariffed, so they have to grow products that might not be the most lucrative choice.

Has I said before, unless they let you own and work the land ... if you make it through the red tape ... and make it through the export tax  ::)

Quote
That is, unless a foreign company buys the land. Look at the korean deals in Madagascar and cry.

This is what happen when the government own all the land, they let no citizen use it, unless you are member of the elite and then sell it to foreigners. This is a problem of lack of property rights, which make it impossible for people own and develop anything. Had African had property rights and could individually own land, this could be a different story. When the government owns it ... not one owns it.

Quote
I dont subscribe the myth of all african problems deriving exclusively from colonialism and foreign interference, but it is a decisive factor

Yes foreign interference is a factor and I suspect that Spain had a taste of it when Nazi Germany decided to support General Franco during the civil war.

Almost all African dictator had received aid from abroad, sometime because of the cold war and sometime because He could be only one providing easy access to natural resources.

But the most insidious interference in Africa is from the IMF and all the bleeding Hearts who insist in subsidizing corruption and incompetence through Foreign Aid. The West have given at least 900 Billion $ to most incompetent and corrupt government .... to end incompetence and corruption ???

When you subsidize something you get more of it, so when a government figure out that they will receive cash has long that there is people starving and living in abject poverty ... you can be sure they will endure starvation and poverty

Had King George and Louis IVX received foreign aid from IMF, do you believe that the American colonist and the French would have succeed in their revolutions ?

If the existence of a government is not linked to its people, but international donors, you can be sure of having it don't give a crap to its own people.

Get rid of foreign aid.

Quote
African markets are heavily intervened by (often corrupt) goverments, but that doesnt mean they ar eprotected, becaus ethe intervention does not pursue the strengthening of the market, just the enrichment of a few and the control of the population

There is not such a thing like government ''protection'' of the market. ... anyway what is the market ? or what it the ''correct'' configuration of the market that needs protection ?

The market is just a short way to describe the use social phenomenon of millions of people interacting in diverse activities, for profit or not. This is what you should of when you talk of ''markets'', you talk about the liberty of each of those individuals to make choices such has choosing to works a patch of unoccupied land to make a farm, buy from a Chinese or English, choose stuff to eat or what mean of transport ... we are not talking about a plant called ''market'' which need to be taken care off.

We are talking about people, we are talking about lives and I contend that the best way of those people to succeed is that they have power to make decision over their own lives and all the restriction over them shall be removed such has : Import/export tariff, Government ownership of land, licensing, tax, red tape, etc...

Sorry but I don't have time to answer stuff relevant to the topic but I have one question for you :

Even if you don't buy the whole anarchy stuff, do you agree that it would be preferable that the government had not monopoly over certain aspect of society ? wouldn't it be better if people could associate freely ?
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: El Hombre Malo on March 31, 2010, 09:28:55 am
@El Hombre Malo:

Even if you don't buy the whole anarchy stuff, do you agree that it would be preferable that the government had not monopoly over certain aspect of society ? wouldn't it be better if people could associate freely ?

Of course I do. I advocate property rights and subscribe to the notion of goverments having to depend on people's sanction and scrutiny.

And actually, I dont believe in racial sin. I find the notion of white men as source of all evil as paternalistic as conolialist ideas about "saving the savage's soul", since diminishing africans responsability for their own fate is equivalent to infantilization. Some years ago, discussing about Rwanda on spanish left leaning political forums, I encountered many well meant people who susbscribed to the notion of western economical interests and post-conolialism beign ultimatelly responsible for the horror. In their mind, africans were inherently nice and thus incapable of devising an ideology that called for the extermination of another group. Germans? Sure. But not africans.

 And I fully prefer micro-loan initiatives to subsidies and hand outs, mostly for the same reasons but also because I've seen how little actual help gets to the ones who needs it the most. Yet there is still many reasons why I prefer goverments to exist rather than leave it all to the invisible hand of the market.

I am sorry if I cant adress more of your points now, sams, but I have much less time than yesterday. I enjoyed reading your post and while I still disagree with some things I learned a good deal about others.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on March 31, 2010, 12:23:57 pm
The Afghan militia isn't totally libertarian? So what? Does that mean that a libertarian militia could not possibly work?

What is this, some bizarre attempt to impugn an idea on the basis of some practitioners of a slightly similar idea? This ploy reminds me of the feminist "logic" that "some men rape, therefore all men are rapists."  You can stuff that!

Regarding letters of recommendation, etc. I suspect that we'll develop some means of digitally signing certificates of identity, business transactions, and so forth, in a manner which will provide a way to assess creditworthiness.

Can such personal recommendations sometimes fail? Well, yes - you may have slept with somebody's daughter when you shouldn't have. But you have recourse - you can seek a recommendation from someone who doesn't yet know about your inability to keep your pants zipped. What if you've offended the One Bureaucrat Who Rules All? You are then well and truly in deep doodoo. I'll take free markets over governments; governments by their nature deprive you of choices, some of which are certain to be good choices.

All these litanies of the terrible horrors of free markets depend upon wishful thinking, the belief that some magic pixie dust will in some distant future transform government agents into angels, despite all past historical evidence.

Think hard, and you can make it happen. Right. It worked in Peter Pan.

Back to this mythological discussion of a raving beast which will destroy an AnCap society. What if "we are everywhere" - including in the heart of your machinery?

Now, one of the dumbest things I've read is this: "It took many decades for the Soviet Union to fall, and how long mainland China - or even North Korea - will last is not yet known. The imperfections of the industrialized democracies are more than tolerable if they help protect us from falling into such a pit of agony."

The "imperfection" of which you speak is that we are in fact being driven right into that pit of agony, albeit at a slower pace, on the mistaken theory that this somehow prevents us from diving more rapidly. What is wrong with doing a 180 and reversing course?  How stupid and blind can you be?

Today, we read of serious problems in Irish banks - another of a long list of financial problems these past few years. If you read "This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly", you'll find that we have hundreds of years of banking crises, and every time, the Great Marvelous Politicians claim that "this time is different."

When you read Murray Rothbard, Hayek, von Mises, or the more recent work by Jesús Huerta de Soto, Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, you'll find that the root of these long-repeated boom-and-bust cycles is the practice of fractional reserve banking. You'll also find that, historically, there is another and better way to do business: 100% reserve banking, fully backed by real stuff, and that the stuff which worked best historically was gold and silver, not paper. This is where the AnCap revolution is leading - a sound and more productive economy based upon sound money.






Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: SandySandfort on March 31, 2010, 01:59:53 pm
Regarding letters of recommendation, etc. I suspect that we'll develop some means of digitally signing certificates of identity, business transactions, and so forth, in a manner which will provide a way to assess creditworthiness.

We already do. This is old news that dates back to David Chaum's cryptographic work in the 1970s(!) See:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chaum

Here is an explanation of his voter verification protocol, that has relevance to the use of unforgeable digital signatures:
 
   http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~poorvi/Chaum/chaum.pdf
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 31, 2010, 03:03:26 pm
And I fully prefer micro-loan initiatives to subsidies and hand outs, mostly for the same reasons but also because I've seen how little actual help gets to the ones who needs it the most. Yet there is still many reasons why I prefer goverments to exist rather than leave it all to the invisible hand of the market

I must make a confession ... I'm not an anarchist ... sorry  ;D I'm a pragmatic guy and I believe that we should advance freedom at its maximum, this is why I love Anarchist, they are never afraid to question everything and every one.

I understand that government is a useful way to make certain things, like national defence and a court system, but not necessary everything else. We can have private police, private courts for business non-criminals, privately issued money ? sure I'm all for it !

I hope in government in anything else, everything since even the most vaunted cure of all evil ''democracy'' has failed, and we can see it for the US:

George W Bush is elected president and manage to dig the US in a 3 trillions debt and 2 wars ... Barrack Hussein Obama succeed him and .... dig the country in 4 trillions $ debts and will likely start another war ! What is the punishment for each of those man misdeed ? nothing ! Loosing an election only cost them their Ego will the rest have to foot the Bill
The same for the Congress of the US, which is mostly fill with people who never did a damn thing in their lives unless it is to sleep with prostitutes, take bribes and ridiculize Private entreprise executive .... lets not talk of Gordon Brown in the UK, who is also sinking that ship !

You see government has crappy incentive : it attracts the lest efficient people, they loose nothing even when they mismanage in collosale scale.

Do I want a dictatorship ? No I just want that the government have some kind of limits, preferably the most strigent one and tending to more liberty.

Does the fact that 90% of the population agree that I should be killed makes it right ? Does it gives them the right to get the fruit of my labour ? does it give them the right to take my children away ? does it give them the right to tell me who I can talk or trade with ? If 90% of the population turn homosexual, does it give them the right to submit me or my children to have sex with a man so we can ''have a chance to discover our inner alternative personality'' ?
This is were most democratic government turn to mob rule literately

Micro-loans are a good initiative, but we can't live on charity, especially foreign charity, so for Africa and any society can't get out of poverty if there is no internal dynamic of savings and growth or the invincible hand

Quote
but also because I've seen how little actual help gets to the ones who needs it the most.

Instead of casting a vote and watch a bastard .... politician .... they are practically the same, bitch about how the poor suffers and then forget about it, why don't you try to actually do something ?

Do you feel that there are poor people suffering ? form and organization and help them
Are there many racist ? form a think thank and go school by school and give talks try to actually do something about it !
Do you feel that kids are getting a crappy education ? found a school or lobby existing schools to improve their curriculum

Do you want a government to do it ? The following will happen :

1 You will lobby a corrupt politician who will take profit of you empathy to tax your fellow man and do the following with the cash : Get a new office, a new blonde secretary, give cash to a corporation or some Union, build a new useless crap in his town and take 5% to buy rancid bread for the poor kids or help the victim of racism
2 You fellow country man will watch the politician make a spirited speech about the poor .... then will forget about it ... then will pay taxes and will spit on the next poor or black they find.
3 the next bastard is elected and .... the poor are still there
Regarding letters of recommendation, etc. I suspect that we'll develop some means of digitally signing certificates of identity, business transactions, and so forth, in a manner which will provide a way to assess creditworthiness.

We already do. This is old news that dates back to David Chaum's cryptographic work in the 1970s(!) See:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chaum

Here is an explanation of his voter verification protocol, that has relevance to the use of unforgeable digital signatures:
 
   http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~poorvi/Chaum/chaum.pdf

Great stuff  ;D
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Rocketman on March 31, 2010, 09:51:55 pm
Sams:  You have addressed a number of issues.  So many in fact, that I have neither the time nor the inclination to address them all.  One way that I think would attract a better breed of person to hold public office would be to increase the number of "Major" political parties here in America.  Right now all that the republicans and democrats have to do to get votes is to be just a little better than the other guy running against them.  But what would happen if the Libertarian Party had viable candidates running against them in every election?  They would be forced into a higher standard or not be elected.  Something to think about.   8)
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on March 31, 2010, 10:02:40 pm
Sams:  You have addressed a number of issues.  So many in fact, that I have neither the time nor the inclination to address them all.  One way that I think would attract a better breed of person to hold public office would be to increase the number of "Major" political parties here in America.  Right now all that the republicans and democrats have to do to get votes is to be just a little better than the other guy running against them.  But what would happen if the Libertarian Party had viable candidates running against them in every election?  They would be forced into a higher standard or not be elected.  Something to think about.   8)

Sounds like an idea ... and it is a necessary to make Judge Andrew Napolitano and Thomas Wood advice come true : Repeal at federal level and Nullify at State level  ... what about you guys start with the IRS  ;D

The Democrats are beyond repair ... and the Republican only hope is to get saved by their libertarian, constitutionalist and Tea Party wing ... but they make a hell of an effort to try to avoid ''contamination'' ::) it is extremely difficult to get a third party running in any country, and it looks like the US is beyond repair

If you wanna save the US you better support and help the libertarian Hijack the Republican party, it is the only way
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: wdg3rd on March 31, 2010, 10:48:24 pm
The same for the Congress of the US, which is mostly fill with people who never did a damn thing in their lives unless it is to sleep with prostitutes, take bribes and ridiculize Private entreprise executive .... lets not talk of Gordon Brown in the UK, who is also sinking that ship !

What's wrong with sleeping with prostitutes?  I don't even have a problem if somebody is also having carnal relations with (since fracking still seems to get censored by the software) prostitutes.  Problem is, if a prostitute is paid by a congressman, it's with stolen money.  (Oh yeah, they also take bribes and such).

Prostitution hasn't come up (much) in the dialog of EFT, but I notice that Scott has snuck a few bits into the storefronts in Ceres, and of course there was the one traveling troupe that was mentioned as delivering mercy services to remote locations around the Belt.

But I am an anarchist.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Rocketman on April 02, 2010, 11:16:13 am
Gordon Brown:  Funny you should mention his name.  That's the total idiot that wrecked the Gold standard of england selling off I forget how many tonnes of english gold bullion (somewhere around half of all the gold that england had at the time) at the exact bottom price for gold.  As I said before, he's either the biggest idiot in england or he was working for a bunch of billionaires that made billions more from his criminality.  So of course the people of england made him their prime minister.  What a farce.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on April 02, 2010, 02:55:50 pm
As I said before, he's either the biggest idiot in england or he was working for a bunch of billionaires that made billions more from his criminality.

I vote for the first Option : HE is an idiot  ;D Being able of criminal deeds require courage ... from a man who became Prime Minister by backstabing Tony Blair, had his party raped at the European elections and serve of push bag for David Cameron mocking sessions lol

I'm not anarchist because I saw Rothbar spirit or spoke with Lysander Spoon, but because Idiots and incompetent like Obama & Brown, whose only talent is to speak, can easily get elected, wreck a country .... and have no consequencies

Had CEO done what BUSH or Obama did ... he would be IN JAIL or his stock holder would have is head for lunch  ;D

Politics is the worst way to manage anything ... so better have them manage the least possible
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Rocketman on April 03, 2010, 08:48:51 am
Speaking of Bush.  I read just yesterday that a third federal judge has now ruled that the unwarrented tapping of phone calls during the Bush administration was illegal and a felony.  If we were still a country of laws that means that Bush, Cheney and Attorney General Gonzales would be going to jail.  Fat chance of that.  >:(
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: wdg3rd on April 03, 2010, 10:46:15 am
Speaking of Bush.  I read just yesterday that a third federal judge has now ruled that the unwarrented tapping of phone calls during the Bush administration was illegal and a felony.  If we were still a country of laws that means that Bush, Cheney and Attorney General Gonzales would be going to jail.  Fat chance of that.  >:(

If we were still a country of laws, at least two of the above would be waiting in cells until their trials at the Hague came up.  But then again, so would be a lot of members of the previous administration (things move even slower there than in the US court system with its constitutional promise of a speedy trial).  (I won't mention the current administration until it's out of power).
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: dough560 on April 05, 2010, 01:58:51 am
I'd just like to see a law where anyone who wrote, sponsored, voted for or signed an unconstitutional bill into law would become civilly liable for damages and all aspects of any bill found to be unconstitutional would be null and void.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on April 05, 2010, 02:20:00 am
I'd just like to see a law where anyone who wrote, sponsored, voted for or signed an unconstitutional bill into law would become civilly liable for damages and all aspects of any bill found to be unconstitutional would be null and void.

The Greeks had a law that every penny of debt that an assembly would impose over the country unless explicit war time effort, would be imposed upon all the members of the assembly upon end of the term ... this could be a mighty deterrent ;)
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Rocketman on April 05, 2010, 10:50:50 am

The Greeks had a law that every penny of debt that an assembly would impose over the country unless explicit war time effort, would be imposed upon all the members of the assembly upon end of the term ... this could be a mighty deterrent ;)
  Makes a lot of sense to me.  Consider for a moment what might have happened to the recent Health Care bill just passed if the Congress and Senate had to have the same plan as the American people.  My guess is that it wouldn't have passed.   >:(
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Zilabus on April 09, 2010, 04:44:18 pm
Quote
You have addressed a number of issues.  So many in fact, that I have neither the time nor the inclination to address them all.  One way that I think would attract a better breed of person to hold public office would be to increase the number of "Major" political parties here in America.  Right now all that the republicans and democrats have to do to get votes is to be just a little better than the other guy running against them.  But what would happen if the Libertarian Party had viable candidates running against them in every election?  They would be forced into a higher standard or not be elected.  Something to think about. 


That's one thing I can definately agree on, and so can many people with an interest in politics. The two party system is stable, but inefficient. I'm not saying we should go into a wildly confusing and difficult to manage party system lik in india, but wouldn't it be nice if politicians who where of Socialist, Libertarian, Green, or anywhere-in-between backgrounds had a decent chance of election in all levels of office? As it is now, Democrats and Republicans largely laugh at independent parties, because they have absolutely no fear of losing, or even being given a good run for their money in most cases. (What do we have? Two independent seats?)


Only one third part has ever become close to getting president, and I think that was in the thirties. And that's where the problem is. The two party system is now so deeply entrenched that it's nearly impossible to uproot, and if you want an actual say in things, your best bet is to vote for the lesser of the two evils. Although, I don't agree that your best bet is to vote republican and hope their more offshoot branches take over. (I don't remember who said that, but I didn't want to put in another quote. Sorry.) I think if you really work and support your favored independents a t a local level, you'll start to see them have more power in slightly higher levels. Kind of a trickle up effect. If he was a great mayor, why can't someon from his party be a great governer? At least, that's what I would hope for.

Quote
What's wrong with sleeping with prostitutes?  I don't even have a problem if somebody is also having carnal relations with (since fracking still seems to get censored by the software) prostitutes.  Problem is, if a prostitute is paid by a congressman, it's with stolen money.  (Oh yeah, they also take bribes and such).

Also agreed. I'm tired of all the fuss always created around these kinds of incidents, in politics, sports, and really everywhere else. I can understand why some people wouldn't want to elect someone engaged in activities like that, I really could care less. I think it's their own damn business what they do on their free time as long as I like what they do in their office. Why any person of fame is somehow elevated to a higher moral standard is beyond me.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Rocketman on April 10, 2010, 08:55:22 am
Lincoln WAS a third party candidate.  He ran as a republican when the two main parties at the were the Democrats and the Whigs.  I'm not in charge of putting the LP back together after the mess in 2008 but if I were preparing for the 2012 election I would put together a debate tour of all 50 states.  The LP presidential candidate would debate the Greens, Constitution and socialist parties presidential candidates in every state in the union.  One of the problems that the third parties have is that the national news media are deliberately keeping the third parties from being heard.  What we do is to take a tactic from Ronald Reagan and go around them.  I think that we would get decent press coverage from the city and regional newspapers, television stations and the like especially if they were the moderators of the event.  Enough people are ticked off enough right now at the two main parties that I think that one or more of the third parties would break out and become a major party.   :D
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: wdg3rd on April 10, 2010, 10:11:37 pm
Lincoln WAS a third party candidate.  He ran as a republican when the two main parties at the were the Democrats and the Whigs.

No, the remnants of the Whigs after their (not very, by two-party standards) incredible defeat in 1856 reassembled (sort of like a Transformer toy, or more likely a Decepticon) into what became the Republican Party that elected Lincoln four years later. And Bush II 4/3 centuries after Booth made his last curtain call continued Lincoln's policies.  (It isn't just Democrats that rape the Bill of Rights, the first and most recent Republican presidents built the coffin and dug the grave while the Democrat (and Republican -- yeah, you, Teddy, and your little nephew too in another Party) presidents actually prepared the corpse that still isn't dead yet (it's not a parrot).

Currently listening to Monster by Steppenwolf.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpuyXdKx9Ws
John Kay had some influences, some of them we're supposed to know about by being born here (right), he had to learn them to get naturalized enough to run for for congress.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Rocketman on April 10, 2010, 10:29:47 pm
From what I remember from my pulbic skol days, the Whigs had suffered a major defeat not the least reason being that they had a fairly large faction within the ranks that were anti-slavery and those people weren't too happy about the compromises that the Whigs had made on the issue of slavery and decided to form a third party, the republican party and had as it's first presidential candidate a tall backwoods lawyer named Lincoln.  The Whig party was still in existence at that point in 1859 but many people had been swayed by Lincoln's speeches against slavery and had joined the Republican party.  Of course the war of Northern aggression, Civil War, whatever you want to call it ended the Whig party which became extinct by the 1863 proclamation Gettysburg address.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: dough560 on April 16, 2010, 02:20:46 am
With the internet, it's easier to go around  the major media for or with information.  With any luck we'll see history repeat its self. Either way the sideways information flow will increase and improve the chance of the rise of the Libertarian Party.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: wdg3rd on April 16, 2010, 10:53:11 pm
With the internet, it's easier to go around  the major media for or with information.  With any luck we'll see history repeat its self. Either way the sideways information flow will increase and improve the chance of the rise of the Libertarian Party.

Fuck the rise of the Libertarian Party.  They're a Party, no respect for individuals.  Since Bob Barr took over, it's just another arm of the statists.  (I'll just have to continue as an individualist anarchist, something my late friend SEK3 encouraged for anybody not into joining clubs).
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Rocketman on April 17, 2010, 06:52:46 pm
frack the rise of the Libertarian Party.  They're a Party, no respect for individuals.  Since Bob Barr took over, it's just another arm of the statists.  (I'll just have to continue as an individualist anarchist, something my late friend SEK3 encouraged for anybody not into joining clubs).

  WDG3rd:  I don't think that's fair.  A party is composed of individuals and a lot of those at the convention didn't support Barr but Dr. Mary Ruwart who is a true libertarian.  I remember seeing Christine Smith who also ran for president denounce his nomination forcefully.  What should be done is to convince the next group of libertarians that if we as libertarians don't stand for libertarian principals then we are no better than the republicans and democrats and that we should never compromise our principals for the sake of gain using the 2008 nomination as an example.  The voting public is starting to wake up and starting to appreciate honesty and consistancy in voting for someone.   ;)
Title: Barr=Less Votes?
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on April 18, 2010, 09:28:03 am
I have not seen any hard numbers or polling data on the 2008 election but I would guess that Barr was a net positive for the Libertarians, even if those within the Party didn't like him. Why? Republicans who are fed up do not vote Nader or Green, they generally vote Libertarian. Sometimes Constitution or Reform, but Libertarians get most of the votes.

Running a known conservative with very libertarian leanings was a genius move at a time when John McCain was the Republican nominee. McCain hated the base, and was hated by the base in turn. McCain was far closer to Barack Obama on everything outside of national security than he was to most Republicans. Global warming! Amnesty! Campaign finance reform that gave the government the power to decide who could speak! McCain was a golden opportunity for the Libertarians to pull themselves out of a slump.

They failed to do so because of their positions on foreign affairs. The vast majority of people in America believe that we need the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to keep us from becoming crater glass. I myself was prepared to join the LP until I read the "No initiation of force" nonsense that passes for their foreign policy. Argue all you like about the need/lack thereof for a standing army, but most people believe it, and the Libertarians are never going to win if they keep ignoring this one central fact.

On the other hand, the Libertarian base are the people who are going to need to organize events for their candidate, raise money for them, and man phones for them. Without the support of the base, Barr probably lost quite a few votes he might otherwise have been able to obtain.

I weigh the first as greater than the second, because the Libertarian Party rates about 1% of the votes in most areas. Attracting one tenth of the "conservatives" to their Party would quadruple its size. (According to the Pew Research Center's report: "Beyond Red Vs. Blue." It's from 2005, but still applicable today with slight rightward shifts because it focused on basic attitudes of large portions of the populace, rather than positions on specific issues.)
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Rocketman on April 18, 2010, 01:49:48 pm
Heinlein Libertarian: Concerning our "Initiation of force" pledge.  That was put into place when the party was first founded back in 1972.  At the time the Vietnam war was winding down and the FBI under Hoover had lumped the LP in the same catagory as the SDS or the weather underground meaning we were to be watched carefully for any indication that the LP might become violent.  If a LP meeting was held in a public diner you could count on a couple of plain clothes FBI agents wearing a wire sitting in the next booth listening to the conversation.  FBI moles joined the LP and you could tell them because they were the ones advocating violence against the U.S.  The IOF was a way of defusing what could have been a potential disaster for the LP is one or more members turned rogue and committed an illegal act.  Lastly, I have seen some hard number on the 2008 election although I don't have them in front of me and concerning what Barr was promising and what he actually delivered was very far apart.  We wouldn't have done much worse it the ticket had been Ruward/ Cubby and we would have stayed true to our principals of limited government and individual freedom.  :'(
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: wdg3rd on April 18, 2010, 03:55:21 pm
frack the rise of the Libertarian Party.  They're a Party, no respect for individuals.  Since Bob Barr took over, it's just another arm of the statists.  (I'll just have to continue as an individualist anarchist, something my late friend SEK3 encouraged for anybody not into joining clubs).

  WDG3rd:  I don't think that's fair.  A party is composed of individuals and a lot of those at the convention didn't support Barr but Dr. Mary Ruwart who is a true libertarian.  I remember seeing Christine Smith who also ran for president denounce his nomination forcefully.  What should be done is to convince the next group of libertarians that if we as libertarians don't stand for libertarian principals then we are no better than the republicans and democrats and that we should never compromise our principals for the sake of gain using the 2008 nomination as an example.  The voting public is starting to wake up and starting to appreciate honesty and consistancy in voting for someone.   ;)
The folks who voted for Mary were playing by majoritarian rules.  "There's more of us than there are of you, so do it our way or we'll beat you up".  Gang wars writ large.

I am not a member of the Party.  Never have been, never will be.  I am not a joiner. 

And please call me Ward.  My name is at the bottom of everything I post, anywhere -- my logname is wdg3rd because there is no other anywhere -- there is another Ward Griffiths (my father and grandfather are long dead) on this continent, a former champion bicyclist and the first (possibly only) Norteamericano to fly a human-powered helicopter.  Now a drummer with a folk band in Oregon, I suspect she might have issues with her parents about her name.  (And before you go googling it, there's also an MP from Wales who shares the name)
Title: Re: Barr=Less Votes?
Post by: wdg3rd on April 18, 2010, 04:18:35 pm
[]

I am ashamed that you use my adopted father's name.  Yeah, I adopted three fathers back in my youth, Heinlein, Julius Marx and Richard B. Fuller -- they taught me to think before I feel [feeling is important, but not a unit of judgement].  And how the majority rules is no way to base your life.  (RAH was never a member of the Libertarian Party, from its founding until his death 16 years later).
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Rocketman on April 19, 2010, 09:53:39 am
Ward:  I'm going to have to disagree.  What you call "majoritarian rules" I call a naked power grab of the LP by people who aren't real libertarians in the first place.  I wasn't at the convention so I don't know for sure but I wonder just how many of the Barr supporters were recent joined members who had no activest experience and were swayed by the promises of the Barr camp.  Both Steve Cubby and Dr. Ruward were basically offered the VP slot and they refused it, no doubt because to do so would have meant that they would have had to go along with what Barr supported.  Cubby and Ruward are real libertarians and as libertarians they did the right (and moral) thing.  :(
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on April 20, 2010, 02:35:16 am
Bob Barr brought in fewer votes. He drove away many libertarian supporters, and GOP voters pulled the lever for McCain, not Barr, so his name recognition was worth less than zero.
Title: Ashamed?
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on April 20, 2010, 07:26:14 am

I am ashamed that you use my adopted father's name.  Yeah, I adopted three fathers back in my youth, Heinlein, Julius Marx and Richard B. Fuller -- they taught me to think before I feel [feeling is important, but not a unit of judgement].  And how the majority rules is no way to base your life.  (RAH was never a member of the Libertarian Party, from its founding until his death 16 years later).


Getting a little excited, aren't we? I'll just quote the great man himself:

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay -- and claims a halo for his dishonesty."

Well, there goes any argument about being ashamed that I took your adopted father's name and used it to argue for a military.

::EDIT:: There seems to be some confusion over what I wrote, and re-reading it, I can see why. I am not suggesting that all Libertarian Party members are pacifists, or a bunch of wimps. I'm not even suggesting that Mr. Griffiths is a dishonest or shifty pacifist. What I am suggesting is that RAH was not opposed to the military, or war in general. He makes a pretty clear case for both the existence of a military, duty to one's country and/or species, and even aggressive war in his work. When Mr. Griffiths claims to be "ashamed" that I am using RAH's name to advocate for a limited government, primarily organized around providing defense against foreign enemies, it makes absolutely zero sense given RAH's own worldview. The quote was probably a poor choice, as RAH had many on the subject and this one leaves my meaning ambiguous. My apologies. ::END EDIT::

If your "shame" stems from the fact that I pointed out that the Libertarian Party can't win in its current form, and that moderating the tone on the military might be a good idea, then you are willfully blind.

You are entirely correct that selling out to gain popular support is not the right way to do things, nor is bowing your head to the majority if you think they are wrong. However, you cannot simply ignore the fact that nobody wants to buy what you are selling in a representative republic. If you want to see any of the LP's agenda implemented, you have to find a way to get people elected. Ron Paul, Jeff Flake, Tom McClintock, and all of the other Republicans elected to national offices as a part of the Liberty (trans.: libertarian) caucus have done so. They joined a group that agrees with 90% of what they want to see implemented, and is heading in their direction. Another option is people like Bob Barr, who believe in the military, and will bring in others who might not otherwise vote Libertarian. If you demand an ideologically pure Libertarian Party with tests for political correctness (used here in the Leninist sense of "agrees with me entirely,") you can have it. You will still have to pay the cost of not working with others: Electoral failure.
Title: Re: Ashamed?
Post by: sams on April 20, 2010, 08:21:58 am
If you want to see any of the LP's agenda implemented, you have to find a way to get people elected. Ron Paul, Jeff Flake, Tom McClintock, and all of the other Republicans elected to national offices as a part of the Liberty (trans.: libertarian) caucus have done so.

You got a point ;D

Ron Paul stance on military matters is not let throw out the nukes and get in pacifist orgy ... it is simply that the US should be committed to his own defence and that Wars should be declared and fought to win clear objectives only when it is in the vital interest of the US citizens

I believe that you could bring a libertarian platform to pretty much agree with this constitutional stance  ;)

Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Rocketman on April 20, 2010, 11:01:24 am
Heinlein Libertarian:  You seem to think that being a Libertarian means that you are automatically anti-military and that is not the case.  Although I may not be a pure enough libertarian to satisfy every person in the LP I am probably more libertarian than the average
member of the LP and I am pro-military.  I believe that we need a strong enough military that no other country in the world would be foolish enough to attack us.  What I would like to see is a extremely well trained small core element to the military that would man the missile silos, fly the fighter jets and bombers and be the tip of the spear so to speak to repel an enemy invasion.  The majority of the troops would be similar to the swiss nation defense force.  They would be armed with assault rifles, sniper rifles, recoilless anti-tank rifles and so on.  Be trained one weekend a month and have special dispensation for being part of the reserve force.  If that's what we would have we wouldn't be able to start wars in other countries but we would be able to defend this country for a fraction of the money that we spend now.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on April 20, 2010, 12:12:51 pm
THE "NO VIOLENCE" PLEDGE

Heinlein Libertarian: Concerning our "Initiation of force" pledge.  That was put into place when the party was first founded back in 1972.  At the time the Vietnam war was winding down and the FBI under Hoover had lumped the LP in the same catagory as the SDS or the weather underground meaning we were to be watched carefully for any indication that the LP might become violent.  If a LP meeting was held in a public diner you could count on a couple of plain clothes FBI agents wearing a wire sitting in the next booth listening to the conversation.  FBI moles joined the LP and you could tell them because they were the ones advocating violence against the U.S.  The IOF was a way of defusing what could have been a potential disaster for the LP is one or more members turned rogue and committed an illegal act.

I was not aware of that history, and it surprises the heck out of me. Infiltrators require a lot of training (and therefore man hours and cash,) to be even slightly effective. That the Fed would waste that many resources on Libertarians is disappointing, if not totally surprising.

GENERAL POLITICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE LP

I understand the frustration at seeing somebody who does not share your beliefs winning your party's nomination. I am one of the many Republicans that constantly gripes about RINO's and how our candidates are failing to follow conservative principles. On the other hand, the more conservative candidates tend to win elections every time unless they are totally incapable of explaining concepts like capitalism, freedom, and peace through strength. RINO's tend to lose every time. I'm supporting both my principles and a means to achieve victory.

Is demanding an ideologically pure Libertarian candidate doing the same thing? I would argue that it is not. Keep in mind a few things about the Libertarian Party:

1) It is not a major party. It has never come close to winning a Presidential contest, no Governors, no Senators and a handful of Congressmen.

2) The public is basically familiar with the positions of the major parties. They attract press attention, volunteers and cash because reporters/donors recognize that they can win consistently. All most people know about the Libertarians is that they want to legalize pot.

3) Ideological purity means your message is undiluted, but it means smaller numbers. These smaller numbers mean that a Bob Barr can easily overwhelm you if he brings enough organization with him. The fact that Barr was able to overwhelm the establishment Libertarians so easily should tell you that your message is failing to attract people to the Party.

Whether you want to call it ideology or marketing, the Libertarian Party is a failure. For now. If the Libertarians want to expand, they need to either change the message a little bit or do a better job getting their message out. If you are willing to accept the idea that a military might be necessary, then a Barr is not such a bad thing because just one of him managed to overwhelm your entire Party. A few disaffected Republicans who can bring others with them could easily grow the Party to dramatic new heights. If you want to keep the Party pure, go out there and sell it to as many people as you possibly can before another Bob Barr comes along, and manages to establish themselves by putting their people in key locations. The "pure" Libertarians are basically Georgia (Tbilisi, not peaches,) at the moment. They can either be conquered by Russia (Barr) or they can expand their influence with their neighbors by accommodating them a little, and maintain their independence.

I'd really prefer you do neither, and realize that the Republican Party, for all its imperfections, can easily be moved in the direction of legalizing drugs and possibly even prostitution, by arguing from the "limited government" angle.
Title: Can you be a Libertarian and a non-pacifist?
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on April 20, 2010, 01:32:50 pm
Heinlein Libertarian:  You seem to think that being a Libertarian means that you are automatically anti-military and that is not the case.  Although I may not be a pure enough libertarian to satisfy every person in the LP I am probably more libertarian than the average member of the LP and I am pro-military.  I believe that we need a strong enough military that no other country in the world would be foolish enough to attack us...  If that's what we would have we wouldn't be able to start wars in other countries but we would be able to defend this country for a fraction of the money that we spend now.

I am in almost total agreement with you. I do not mistake libertarian and pacifist for synonyms. Libertarianism, in fact, requires a willingness to fight for one's self and one's country to work. AnCap is a philosophy that denies the necessity of an organized, standing army. I disagree, and argue that we need both a standing army and an army capable of striking foreign nations. As for the Libertarian Party, I would argue that their willingness to attack the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan aided our enemies.

My main concern is that we demonstrate to our enemies that we have both the ability and willingness to attack them if we must. Putting up a sign in your front yard that says "WARNING: There are no weapons in this house," will not stop anybody who wants to rob/rape/murder a few people. If your sign says "WARNING: We have a gun, but do not wish to shoot you" It might deter a more cautious antagonist. On the other hand, if they have any balls or reason to believe you won't use it, the gun alone does nothing. A sign in your front yard that says "WARNING: Trespassers will be shot," accompanied by a copy of a newspaper article describing how you did just that, is a real deterrent.

Nations and terrorists work the same way. Vietnam, Somalia, and eight years of Clinton's sanctions against Iraq had shown the Islamofascists that we were a bunch of chumps who would not pull the trigger. Somalia convinced Osama that we were a "paper tiger." Immediately after the invasion of Iraq, Libya gave up its stockpiles of weapons and support of terrorists, and many other nations in the region dropped the bellicosity and started to be much more responsible. They tested the limits (like Turkey,) but held back. As soon as the Democrats started doing everything they could to sabotage Pres. Bush, Libya backtracked, and those who had begun to see things our way started to backtrack. Iran rebuilt their nuke program and began funneling as much cash and equipment as they could to the Iraqi insurgents. Strength and the willingness to use it means respect from our enemies, strength without that willingness means that we are chumps, and can be treated as such.

Libertarianism has been turned in to isolationism combined with free trade by the modern Libertarian Party. I would argue that this strategy will work only so long as we are both willing and able to conduct some gunboat diplomacy to avoid a repeat of the Barbary pirates. This requires force projection capabilities. In other words, transports, subs, aircraft carriers, fighters, bombers, missile defense, etc. We might be able to reduce our deployments abroad, and save a little money, but we could not eliminate them all by any means. Furthermore, it would mean trying to stop the terrorists here at home, rather than fighting us in godawful corners of the world. At home, they have every advantage, because they pick where to strike at unarmed civillians. In Afghanistan, we can track them, pound them to bits, and have only armed targets to offer.

The only way America can really become a fortress is to bomb almost everybody else's fortresses in to dust. Sad. but true.
Title: Re: Can you be a Libertarian and a non-pacifist?
Post by: Brugle on April 20, 2010, 05:11:05 pm
... Islamofascists ...
By that, you mean people who agree with your politics but not your religion?
Title: Re: Can you be a Libertarian and a non-pacifist?
Post by: sams on April 21, 2010, 12:44:36 am
... Islamofascists ...
By that, you mean people who agree with your politics but not your religion?


Fairly accurate  :D

all this Islamofascists is a pure nonsensical scare ... there is islamist organization who want to take the world  ::) If some European countries are gaining arabe minorities is because they aren't making babies enough ... if you want to help them ship more Viagra  ;D
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: dough560 on April 21, 2010, 02:30:49 am
The Libertarians I deal with, all are armed with personal weapons that hit harder and out range the issue M16 / M4 rifle /carbine or M9 Pistol.  The only reason many of us don't have selective fire or crew served items is the market restrictions / distortions imposed by the National Firearms Act.

Many of the Organized Militia's in the 1980 / 90's, threw out anyone who advocated violence against the government.  These agitators were believed to be government agents.

Many groups in the 60's and 70's who engaged in or planned violence landed in court.  Each time the primary government witness was a group member who advocated violence and initiated the planning and aided in material procurement.  During the trials, invariability the violence advocate was revealed to be a government agent.  As a result, several trials returned Not Guilty verdicts due to entrapment.

Don't mistake Non-Aggression for Non-Violence.  Many of us realize an effective military is necessary in today's world.   We believe the military use or deployment could be smarter and in some cases, more aggressive.  Granted, keeping the military current is expensive in development, maintenance and training.  It's more expensive not to have those things.

One of my duties in the eighty's was that of a body guard in West Germany.  After President Regan had a B111 park a 2,000 pound bomb in Kadaffy's bedroom, things got real quiet.  The thugs learned they could be gotten to.

Regan had the Will.  Obama doesn't.  In-spite of the war.  Many Democrats and some Republicans are doing everything they can to run down and defund the military.
Title: Re: Ashamed?
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on April 21, 2010, 10:57:49 am
There seems to be some confusion over what I wrote, and re-reading it, I can see why. I am not suggesting that all Libertarian Party members are pacifists, or a bunch of wimps.

If your "shame" stems from the fact that I pointed out that the Libertarian Party can't win in its current form, and that moderating the tone on the military might be a good idea, then you are willfully blind.

To echo Benjamin Franklin, "Those who are willing to give up the principle of liberty for a little electoral success deserve neither liberty not electoral success."  Candidates in the Libertarian Party could also increase its chances of being elected if they would moderate their tone on regulation, or entitlements, or health care instead of or in addition to their "tone on the military."
That would, however, exchange electoral success for philosophical failure.


That being said, the Libertarian Party's positions have never embraced or encouraged pacifism.  Its tenets do not reject or denigrate the use of force, but rather the initiation of force.   While a naive failure to understand this distinction upon first encountering it is somewhat understandable and easily remedied; a continued insistence on there being no distinction is an indication of a deliberate choice to not understand and worth of derision.  While any and all individuals are free to choose to be pacifists and to espouse being pacifists, that is orthogonal to (but consistent with) libertarian principles.  Only if someone insists (with implicit force or threat of force) that others adopt that position will that person come into conflict.


You are entirely correct that selling out to gain popular support is not the right way to do things, nor is bowing your head to the majority if you think they are wrong. However, you cannot simply ignore the fact that nobody wants to buy what you are selling in a representative republic. If you want to see any of the LP's agenda implemented, you have to find a way to get people elected.

Inasmuch as those in the Libertarian Party see its purpose as electoral success, the Party is doomed to failure.  The purpose of the Libertarian Party, if it is to be supported, ought to be to increase individual liberty and decrease the power of the State.  Its methods are political, and one of those methods is to put forward candidates for election who promise to and provide plans for doing so.  Direct electoral success is neither necessary nor sufficient to its purpose; having addressed the former, I note that the latter may be achieved both by elected candidates adopting more liberty-oriented positions in response, and/or by the elimination of the State and Martial Democracy, perhaps through apathy.


Ron Paul, Jeff Flake, Tom McClintock, and all of the other Republicans elected to national offices as a part of the Liberty (trans.: libertarian) caucus have done so.

I am not convinced that any of these individuals truly qualify as libertarian.  I even take exception to Ron Paul being truly qualified as a "constitutionalist", given his apathy toward the Ninth and second half of the Tenth Amendments.  Rather, I see them as elected candidates who advocate certain pro-individual  liberty positions, perhaps to some degree in response to Libertarians.

On a related topic, I have yet to see a consistent argument in favor of a perpetual military.  Such an argument would require addressing how such a military would be financed without abuse and how it would be kept in check.  I would be greatly interested in a well thought out response to this, rather than simply criticizing those who see no justification.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on April 21, 2010, 01:35:07 pm
I have encountered several government moles over the years ... they're always the ones advocating the nuttiest ideas, including violent overthrow of the government.

Do not misunderstand the non-initiation of force idea; it is not pacifist at all. Replacing a terribly ineffective socialist military with a much more effective market-driven voluntary militia is not a pacifist idea either, though it would lead to a more peaceful society. Stop thinking in terms of the "one ring to rule them all" mantra, and think in terms of defense-in-depth carried to the extreme: a rifleman behind very blade of grass; saboteurs throwing shoes in the machinery of the invaders; IEDs and missiles and torpedoes destroying tanks and choppers and battleships - whatever it takes, an anarcho-cap society will do faster and better and cheaper than any socialist imitation ever could.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: quadibloc on April 21, 2010, 09:39:19 pm
I would not wish to be accused of dishonestly suggesting that only a Libertarian society would be unable to survive thermonuclear bombardment. Societies of all political persuasions would have trouble.

However, the level of defenses the United States had against the Soviet Union in the era of Mutually Assured Destruction do not seem like those that would have been developed voluntarily by individuals in citizen militias. I know, this may just be a failure on my part to imagine creative ways of how problems could be coped with in a society different from the one I am used to.

A system that was able to provide a high degree of freedom to its people, and defend against external threats of enormous size does not seem to me like something to be lightly tossed aside, even in the name of noble principles.

When the frontier is closed, and there's nowhere to run, it's easier for governments to demand more of people; but it's also true that in such a situation, without an open frontier, it seems as though it is no longer the case that anyone willing to work can survive: instead, for most people, they have to have a job, which they can only get if some business is hiring. Every patch of ground on which food might be grown is owned by someone else.

It's no accident that the asteroid belt is where the Libertarian system is, while a crowded overpopulated Earth has become bureaucratized and is heading towards totalitarianism. Each system is being illustrated here in what history has shown to be its natural habitat.

Without good answers as to how Libertarianism can work in unfavorable circumstances, why should it be surprising that many who value freedom would see the best option as simply a return to how the United States originally worked when the Constitution was respected, rather than trusting the nation to people whose goal is to go further - maybe not "immediately", but still possibly sooner than prudent - and abolish taxation and conscription completely?

Even returning to the principles of the Founding Fathers will be hard enough in today's world. And it would be a good first step.

By that, you mean people who agree with your politics but not your religion?
Islamofascists don't agree with my politics.

My politics - nor those of the Libertarians around here, I should think - never approved of a system where members of the majority group are entitled on occasion to wreak rape, robbery, and assorted mayhem on a defenceless minority from time to time... and then rise up in genocidal outrage when the minority tries to defend itself.

Making someone a "dhimmi" requires the initiation of force.

Of course, as a result of what it's been through, Israel is now a very organized state with a strong military function, and some injustices have arisen from how it has dealt with its perceived security concerns. There might, therefore, be many of the Libertarian persuasion who are a lot less supportive of Israel than I am. After all, you need government to make water flow uphill. But one can be unhappy with Israel without preferring its enemies.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on April 22, 2010, 12:29:04 am
You have not yet grokked several important ideas.

#1) socialism is inherently inefficient and wasteful, compared to market alternatives
#2) the largest example of socialism in the world is the U.S. Military
#3) if you doubt this, then you don't understand the definition of socialism: government ownership of the means of producing goods and services.
#4) governments produce nothing in and of themselves; they simply mismanage resources which were created by the private sector, and provide inferior substitutes
for goods which could have been created more efficiently by the private sector.

Suppose you wish to build a bomb. You have two ways to do so. One method is
on a free market - people freely choose how much to spend, and what to obtain for their expenditure. The second method is political. Instead of using the market system, which is known to be more efficient, a bunch of politicians decide that part A shall be built in congressional district #12, and part B in district #37, and that
the price should include kickbacks to the good buddy of Congressman $126, etc.
Since the congressmen don't actually pay for the costs, and need not ask for the funds, but can take them at will, they don't worry about getting the best prices. It ain't their dollar on the line.

Are you still sure that the Pentagon is providing the most efficient defense possible? Have you ever been in the military, or spoken with anyone who has
been in the military? An encounter with the real thing is likely to disabuse you
of your religious belief in the One True Socialist Military "solution." The only reason
our boys overseas don't get slaughtered in vast numbers is that they are backed
by an extreme amount of wealth - produced by a society which is slightly less
regimented than the former USSR, and therefore more productive.

Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: nottheowl on April 22, 2010, 03:06:09 am
Hello All,

I would like to add that the circumstances of Escape from Terra bear little direct comparison to any of terrestrial history. While, superficially, the 19th-century North American and Siberian frontiers bear some resemblance to the World Ceres (I'm a new enough reader to still chuckle at that), the following differences are paramount.

An individual member of the belt has access to complete and uncensored information (the tanglenet); to an average level of aggressive technology on a par with the most advanced posessed by the formal military (certainly individual for individual); and most importantly to a hiding place of such size and material resource that it beggars the terrestrial imagination. I would suggest that any attempted military incursion of this volume would amount to an ant erecting a flag in the sand, and claiming to have conquered the Sahara.

Moreover, these people are used to the concepts of size and potential involved. I would suggest that this gives them a very different, indeed an alien mindset. Anarchism may not appeal to the modern intellectual, but we are used to thinking on (at most) a terrestrial scale. Given that there is always somewhere else you can go, how complete can an occupation be? How effective a tyranny? Given that a determined individual can move and mine an asteroid, how do the resources of an engineering battalion compare? Given that that same individual can set the asteroid on an Earthward trajectory, can an army be more destructive? Given the population supported by an inhabited Solar System, and the level of technology required, how small a percentage need work for liberty to ensure it? By today's standard, vanishingly small.

Anarchism must be effective when one person cannot possibly constrain the actions of another. That point has certainly not yet been reached in Escape from Terra. In these tales, the race is still young. I suspect that any tensions remaining are due to the survival of the one-planet perspective, and without it, the conflict necessary for drama would not be possible. But that time is certainly predictable.

I look forward to it!


Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: KBCraig on April 22, 2010, 03:21:18 am
Bob Barr brought in fewer votes. He drove away many libertarian supporters, and GOP voters pulled the lever for McCain, not Barr, so his name recognition was worth less than zero.

Correct. The LP Presidential candidate historically gets about 1%, more or less, of the total vote. The Barr/Root ticket got 0.40%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Election#Nationwide_results

Anyone claiming they "don't know the hard numbers", but "Barr had a positive effect" in the last election, is just fooling themselves. Or, lying.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on April 22, 2010, 03:42:21 am
Anarchism must be effective when one person cannot possibly constrain the actions of another. That point has certainly not yet been reached in Escape from Terra. In these tales, the race is still young. I suspect that any tensions remaining are due to the survival of the one-planet perspective, and without it, the conflict necessary for drama would not be possible. But that time is certainly predictable.

I loved you analyse and welcome by the way  :D

I think that the most important factor to a Anarchist society to arise is like you said this new dimension that would be the inner solar system, but the most important aspect is the technological means for individuals to protect their liberty.

for most of antiquity to the medieval times Humans were the only weapons available to themselves, so to protect your liberty you needed to have enough like minded enough to make a force to reckon with. This was the case of the Greek city states.

Then technological and technical advances, such has the Phalanx and Roman Legions,  multiplied the effectiveness of each warrior and defending one self freedom became easier ... then inventions of the firearms enhanced the capacity to work for your freedom even more

To have a parallel, the Crusader States and Israel are equally outnumbered and surrounded by hostile forces, but being in the age of Firearms and Artillery, Israeli can defend with more ease will the crusaders had only one army which the lost at Hattin was doom.

The current technological level is balanced to the side of government, with heavy bomber, carriers, jet fighters and tanks, but if we a new technology leap occurs and we attain a new level of force multipliers, such has for example widely available UAV or battle drones (star wars stupid reference sorry ;D), maybe a new level of freedom may occurs.

This new level also require a more wealthier economy which is indeed possible with huge dimension that is the belt, but it may also occurs here on earth  ;)
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: SandySandfort on April 22, 2010, 07:37:21 am
Excellent analysis. Glad you could join us.

Hello All,

I would like to add that the circumstances of Escape from Terra bear little direct comparison to any of terrestrial history. While, superficially, the 19th-century North American and Siberian frontiers bear some resemblance to the World Ceres (I'm a new enough reader to still chuckle at that), the following differences are paramount.

An individual member of the belt has access to complete and uncensored information (the tanglenet); to an average level of aggressive technology on a par with the most advanced posessed by the formal military (certainly individual for individual); and most importantly to a hiding place of such size and material resource that it beggars the terrestrial imagination. I would suggest that any attempted military incursion of this volume would amount to an ant erecting a flag in the sand, and claiming to have conquered the Sahara.

Moreover, these people are used to the concepts of size and potential involved. I would suggest that this gives them a very different, indeed an alien mindset. Anarchism may not appeal to the modern intellectual, but we are used to thinking on (at most) a terrestrial scale. Given that there is always somewhere else you can go, how complete can an occupation be? How effective a tyranny? Given that a determined individual can move and mine an asteroid, how do the resources of an engineering battalion compare? Given that that same individual can set the asteroid on an Earthward trajectory, can an army be more destructive? Given the population supported by an inhabited Solar System, and the level of technology required, how small a percentage need work for liberty to ensure it? By today's standard, vanishingly small.

Anarchism must be effective when one person cannot possibly constrain the actions of another. That point has certainly not yet been reached in Escape from Terra. In these tales, the race is still young. I suspect that any tensions remaining are due to the survival of the one-planet perspective, and without it, the conflict necessary for drama would not be possible. But that time is certainly predictable.

I look forward to it!



Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: quadibloc on April 22, 2010, 07:42:26 pm
Are you still sure that the Pentagon is providing the most efficient defense possible?
I'm well aware that the Pentagon is famous for $5,000 toilet seats.

A free market is very good at providing what individuals are directly willing to pay for to use and consume themselves. Dealing with externalities, with shared overhead expenses, with services that it is awkward to charge for... that is where it has a problem. (Of course, you could retort that I've just proved that neither elevators nor Google can exist.)
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: SandySandfort on April 22, 2010, 07:52:32 pm
A free market is very good at providing what individuals are directly willing to pay for to use and consume themselves. Dealing with externalities, with shared overhead expenses, with services that it is awkward to charge for... that is where it has a problem. (Of course, you could retort that I've just proved that neither elevators nor Google can exist.)

Elevators, Google and Insurance. Insurance is the perfect way to fund a non-governmental military without coersion.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Brugle on April 22, 2010, 08:56:04 pm
A free market is very good at providing what individuals are directly willing to pay for to use and consume themselves. Dealing with externalities, with shared overhead expenses, with services that it is awkward to charge for... that is where it has a problem.
Of course--some efforts are more problematic than others.  But voluntarily cooperating people are good at finding solutions.

Government is much, much worse.  It might be able to solve simple problems (inefficiently), as long as the process is static and takes little judgement.  But it is terrible at anything complex, often creating massive negative externalities (and not taking advantage of positive externalities).
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: dough560 on April 23, 2010, 12:01:51 am
I believe nottheowl is correct with his analysis of Escape From Terra and as it applies to our current society.  The Libertarian Party is finding its way, spreading Libertarian Ideals.  Many people in the Democrat and Republican Parties espouse Libertarian Ideals, and don't even know it.  It's a matter of recognition.  Not conversion.

We're seeing Libertarian Candidates win local offices.  As their influence spreads, Libertarians will win state and eventually federal offices.  Patience is necessary.  The Libertarian Movement will be self directed.  Not an organized forced march.

 
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on April 23, 2010, 02:24:12 am
Anarchy will arrive one-by-one, as people practice it. To illustrate, bear with me as I describe a few recent social revolutions, which are quite breathtaking when viewed from the perspective of 1960. One is the whole "gay rights" issue. Another is home education. In 1960, had someone predicted that sodomy would be legal everywhere in America in 40 years, and that many countries would legalize gay marriage, you would have been called a crackpot. To this day, neither the D nor R parties can be said to be consistent advocates of those ideas. Both treat the issues gingerly. Yet, it is obvious that the gay movement has essentially won the battle. How? One person at a time. People talked about the issues, defended their right to be left alone, let their presence be known, lobbied, etc, etc.

Likewise, in 1960, if you had predicted that home schooling would be growing 7-10% annually, that the youngest student (14) in Cambridge for 200 years would be a home schooler, ( as was the previous 14 year old ), you would have been called a crackpot. But that is the reality today. One by one, parents exercised their right to educate their own children, and learned how to do so far more effectively than those expensive and ineffective government "solutions." Nowadays, pretty much everyone knows a home schooler or several. It is getting hard to paper over or ignore the obvious advantages. In another ten or twenty years, the battle will be over; government schools will disappear.

Both of these are forms of anarchy; people are making their own decisions about their love lives and their education.

A third area is that of self-defense; about 40 states now have legalized concealed carry of weapons; most people now know that self-defense is safer and more effective and quicker than the "dial 9-1-1 and pray" method.

A fourth area: the battle for freedom to smoke marijuana has pretty much been won; from here, it's just clean-up actions. The politicians are always the last to get on board, when the public is already exercising their freedom.

One by one, the excuses for the megastate are being knocked down. The claim that the government "needs to do something" is being exposed as a lie by our own actions, as we voluntarily find ways to solve important problems - better, faster, and cheaper than the government, without resorting to unjustifiable coercion.

The Libertarian Party will wake up one day and discover that it has been rendered  superfluous - nobody bothers to vote or pays taxes anymore, there's something better to do.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Rocketman on April 23, 2010, 09:53:27 am
And I will so look forward to that day if it ever comes.   :'(   :'(   :'(   :'(   :'(
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: nottheowl on April 24, 2010, 02:47:24 am
I recall that the assumptions of an efficient free market are;
1. No one supplier or buyer can produce or demand enough to affect market price,
2. All products of the same type are equal in quality, and
3. Every supplier and buyer has perfect knowledge of the participants and prices in the market.

Terrestrially, only the agricultural market approaches the ideal.

A population of astronomical numbers would aid (though not, I think, ensure) the first, effective equality of material resource would likewise assist the second, and the Tanglenet would guarantee the third. I think our future humanity would come to consider the ability to buy anything just one more aspect of resource wealth. Again, Escape from Terra isn't there yet, but it's coming.

But excuse me- discussion is perhaps more about applicability to modern life than anticipation of an even more distant future. , Corporations will remain "market makers" for some time to come; there will be monopoly and monopsony in our lifetimes, I think.

Perhaps some truly revolutionary, safe and accessible power source, in combination with a realisation of the Tanglenet, could shake things up rapidly... there I go again!
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on April 24, 2010, 03:01:50 am
I recall that the assumptions of an efficient free market are;
1. No one supplier or buyer can produce or demand enough to affect market price,
2. All products of the same type are equal in quality, and
3. Every supplier and buyer has perfect knowledge of the participants and prices in the market.

Terrestrially, only the agricultural market approaches the ideal.

actually this is simply impossible ... there is not such a thing like a ''efficient free market'', just a Free Market and what you described is not one

1- This is not a necessary condition
2- Utterly impossible if you are going to leave free to sell and buy whatever they want : I sell Burger King, You can sell French Patte
3- Completely impossible .... and unnecessary, since with division of labour that happen in a free markets there will have at least dozens of process between the raw material producer to the consumer

I believe corporations are just an efficient way of organization if you need high lvl of capital and to perform complex organizations ... I don't see what is the problem with them really, they enable people who maybe hate each other to come together and perform economic activity.

What it is need to address is the question of government protection of corporations, but here I converge with you that we will need to expand the economy in such a way that the individuals in the free market can challenge arbitrary government power
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on April 24, 2010, 04:03:13 am
Actual free markets, as they exist in the free world, work surprisingly well in spite of theoreticians who moan about "market failures."

The problems with such theoretical studies are twofold. First, they never let themselves be confused with facts or real-world examples of stuff which actually works. Second, they never ask "compared to what?" - that is, they assume that government agents possess magic pixie dust which allows them to automagically avoid all the hypothetical problems of "market" failure. 

Well gee, if I am permitted to assume that I am an benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god, then of course my election to Supreme Poohbah would solve all manner of "market" failures. There is a tiny problem with such lines of reasoning, however; the terrible shortage of such omniscient creatures, and the need to depend upon actual human beings instead.

I am not holding my breath for the day when the critics quit sniping, read about the socialist calculation problem, and actually apply it to real-world examples of socialism, which are far too numerous to shake a stick at.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: nottheowl on April 24, 2010, 05:56:19 am
actually this is simply impossible ... there is not such a thing like a ''efficient free market'', just a Free Market and what you described is not one

You are correct; I refer to the assumptions as given in economic theory, I make no claim that any real institution attains the ideal. A set of assumptions does not have to include necessary (or even sufficient) conditions. I would continue to assert, however, that Escape to Terra's circumstances will approach these ideals (asymptotically?) as time continues.

I would suggest that corporations are not efficient, however, merely (in the best instances) profitable. By law, they are obliged to increase profits, and hence (implicitly at least) aim at monopoly.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on April 24, 2010, 06:11:53 am
Actual free markets, as they exist in the free world, work surprisingly well in spite of theoreticians who moan about "market failures.

Markets are made of people & Peoples fails => Markets may fail because Peoples may fail.
Gvt are made of people & People fails => govt may fail because Peoples may fail

Market fail less than govt => Market are superior => Free people are superior

Send this to those dudes, I believe they may understand this

actually this is simply impossible ... there is not such a thing like a ''efficient free market'', just a Free Market and what you described is not one

You are correct; I refer to the assumptions as given in economic theory, I make no claim that any real institution attains the ideal. A set of assumptions does not have to include necessary (or even sufficient) conditions. I would continue to assert, however, that Escape to Terra's circumstances will approach these ideals (asymptotically?) as time continues.

I recognise your right to make assumptions, but I don't believe that the Escape for Terra circumstances approach your ideals, to which I disagree since I feel a smell of ''equality'' and also because I don't feel it is necessary for a free society like EFT

So lets see how the EFT scenario are similar to to your assumptions
1- Maybe

2- Not possible, since individuals in a free market tend to diversify products : Just to see The grocery choices in the URSS were 100x inferior to the ones of the US, now imagine a whole society has free has EFT : no EPA, no regulation, no importation quotas and no patent. So this condition will never be fulfilled and I don't see what it should since diversity means opportunity

3- Even with the tanglenet it will be impossible since the explosion of diversity will produce such a insane implosion of information. In the market place people remedy this by engaging intermediaries who have knowledge in the sad area

But I agree with you that the dimension of EFT will create an economy that may support a free society better, I just happen to agree for different reasons
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: nottheowl on April 24, 2010, 06:25:57 am
I'm suitable flattered, but they are not my assumptions! The can be traced back to Adam Smith. I invite you to criticise them, but you needn't apologise to me for doing so!

Still, without commiting to any, they remain defensible;

1. Yes, given a population explosion, this is the most easily fulfilled assumption.
2. Agreed; perhaps the rider "at a given price" may be added. But competition would tend to level things out; a clearly superior brand would force out the inferior, and a cheaper brand would force out a more expensive.
3. Equal confusion entails equal information!
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on April 24, 2010, 06:32:24 am
I'm suitable flattered, but they are not my assumptions! The can be traced back to Adam Smith. I invite you to criticise them, but you needn't apologise to me for doing so!

Could you please give some sources or the name of the said theory ... since I want to get a Nobel Price in Economics for myself   :)
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: nottheowl on April 24, 2010, 07:37:49 am
Salvatore and Diulio, "Principles of Economics" is a nice one; there's a "crash course" Schaum edition I highly recommend.

Sean Flynn's "Economics for Dummies" saved me a lot of work in the past.

The best summary of the assumptions is in Collins Dictionary of Economics under "efficient-markets hypothesis". Checking it, my recollection doesn't seem to have been faulty.

How about a mention when you get that Nobel? Nothing florid, "a big thank you to nottheowl without whom none of this would've been possible" will be fine.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on April 24, 2010, 12:10:41 pm
Perhaps the navy is dead. Read this article.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed179.html
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on April 24, 2010, 12:20:32 pm
Perhaps the navy is dead. Read this article.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed179.html

Looks like History have vindicated us  ;D

The technological tide that made gvt the the ultimate organizer of military affairs during ww2 is vanishing ... I'm pretty a private company could build and sell way cheap can opener, AKA Cruise missiles, if they had a private markets

The only exception to this rule of ineficiency is the IDF, but only because they have a permanent scarcity situation
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on April 30, 2010, 01:24:15 am
Why bother with an old-style attack on an industrialized country? If you unleash all those fancy missiles, you destroy whatever made that country more valuable than a bunch of empty and unimproved land. This is why the US of A attacks civilizations like Afghanistan, rather than Germany or France or China.

Why this obsessive need to defend against what is, in economic terms, total lunacy?

The truth of the matter is, those who obsess about these questions, to the tune of $1 trillion per year or thereabouts, have created something which is far less about defense than about corporate welfare. You have to create justifications for all this
spending, so you spend endless hours polishing up your powerpoint presentations and your arguments, but the reality is that, if the objective is to occupy a country, you need boots on the ground, and those boots on the ground are not wearing IronMan suits; they are vulnerable to simple, cheap, and effective weaponry. The tanks are vulnerable to IEDs, which are much cheaper
than tanks. The carriers are vulnerable to the new mach 5.5 missiles, and to the 200 mph torpedoes, which are much
cheaper than carriers - by a factor of 1000:1.

Invasions are impractical against all but the poorest countries. This is why Washington is in a tizzy about the possibility of Iran
acquiring nukes - they're afraid Iran might shoot back with a big enough weapon to deter Washington. Not being able to romp around and destroy the Middle East bothers the Beltway Bandits.

Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on April 30, 2010, 01:43:51 am
Why bother with an old-style attack on an industrialized country? If you unleash all those fancy missiles, you destroy whatever made that country more valuable than a bunch of empty and unimproved land. This is why the US of A attacks civilizations like Afghanistan, rather than Germany or France or China.

Why this obsessive need to defend against what is, in economic terms, total lunacy?

The truth of the matter is, those who obsess about these questions, to the tune of $1 trillion per year or thereabouts, have created something which is far less about defense than about corporate welfare. You have to create justifications for all this
spending, so you spend endless hours polishing up your powerpoint presentations and your arguments, but the reality is that, if the objective is to occupy a country, you need boots on the ground, and those boots on the ground are not wearing IronMan suits; they are vulnerable to simple, cheap, and effective weaponry. The tanks are vulnerable to IEDs, which are much cheaper
than tanks. The carriers are vulnerable to the new mach 5.5 missiles, and to the 200 mph torpedoes, which are much
cheaper than carriers - by a factor of 1000:1.

Invasions are impractical against all but the poorest countries. This is why Washington is in a tizzy about the possibility of Iran
acquiring nukes - they're afraid Iran might shoot back with a big enough weapon to deter Washington. Not being able to romp around and destroy the Middle East bothers the Beltway Bandits.



I think to have it the nail ;)

1- A huge attack force is VERY inefficient, you have to maintain such very expensive equipments long enough to bankrupt yourself and still you can loose it to cheaper equipment.

2- Having a vibrant economy is the first and best detterent, because it means that a war against you will be a big disturbance in international trade and that the defender might have some nasty surprises against you.

This is all a matter of cost and efficiency : just like the magnificent V2 and battleships during WW2, aircraft carrier will become obsolete when you enemy can field something much more cheaper and inexpensive.

Then there is the economic question : Why does the US don't attack a comercially important and wealthy society ?

1- Because trade matter
2- Because they don't want to try against people who can defend themselves

So If an AnCap society want to be effective it needs to gain the status of the world next major trade hub, so any foe will now that an attack will make them countless enemies and that the people there aren't just dope smoking hippies, but they can have some way to defend themselves
Title: Trade + Peace?
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on April 30, 2010, 05:20:47 pm
France and Germany were major trading partners before the invasion in WWII. So were America and Germany, the UK and Germany, America and Japan, etc.

There are always going to be crazy people out there who are eager to invade their neighbors just to steal their stuff. There are always going to be people who are determined to wipe out one ethnic group or another. There are always going to be people who are willing to force their neighbor to convert to their religion. There are always going to be dictators who will need wars to unite their people, and who will thus drum up causes for war where none really exist. Most importantly, there are always going to be people who follow the types I've suggested above.

Maybe an AnCap "state" won't fall prey to any of these types, but their neighbors will. Trade will not stop wars. Nor will a purely defensive military that cannot inflict enough consequences on the enemy's homeland. Defensive militias will not deter nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. They might be somewhat effective at fighting a Western-style military force, that hopes to preserve the lives of the people it is conquering, but will be totally crushed in the face of a Soviet-style invasion that is willing to slaughter entire towns for one sniper. Militias will not stop or even substantially hinder terrorist groups.

AnCap societies cannot defend themselves adequately. Minarchist societies with some police, military and a judicial system would have almost all of the efficiencies of an AnCap society, without all of the associated weaknesses. There is that tiny bit of slavery/taxation you have to deal with, but it prevents true slavery if it can adequately defend you from your enemies.

Am I missing anything, backers of a government military?
Title: Re: Trade + Peace?
Post by: sams on April 30, 2010, 05:30:18 pm
France and Germany were major trading partners before the invasion in WWII. So were America and Germany, the UK and Germany, America and Japan, etc.

No there were not major trade relations between the WW2 belligerent before the conflict, most of the countries were engaged in economic protectionism. Therefore Nazi Germany only hope to get raw material was to have their armies literally get them.

There  nothing to loose by interrupting trade and also Nazi Germany war economy was only a prolongation of their peacetime policies. Your premise is simply wrong, there is was nothing for Hitler to loose by invading europe.

In contrast today , while Taiwan is an obvious reason to have a US-Chinese conflict, the comercial flux between both and in the whole far east region is such that this war could cost most than both countries could ever dream to gain.

So yes, Trade diminish the likelyhood of war because it makes it more expensive that it would be otherwise and make you more enemies than you planned
Title: "Efficiency" and ships passing in the night.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on April 30, 2010, 05:37:13 pm
The whole argument about a "perfectly efficient free market" is pointless, because both sides are not using the same terms. Neither of you is actually suggesting that socialism is good, or better than the free market.

I teach this for a living now that I'm out of the Army. The word  "efficient" is the problem here. It means a very specific thing in a macroeconomic modeling context. It does not mean "produces more of Y (output) for less of X (input.) "Efficiency" means that every resource is allocated to produce the maximum possible value across the economy as a whole. There are some variations on this theme, like Pareto, but I'll avoid that particular digression.

The perfect efficiency of the model is impossible to achieve short of a managing deity. It is a theoretical construct that is used to let us analyze the effects of changing a single variable, not to model a real economy. All of these assumptions are needed to avoid junking up the model with noise that might distort the effects of the change.

Saying that a perfectly-efficient free market is impossible is not a criticism of the free market. It is a simple statement of fact. There are research costs and limitations in the real world. Products are not really interchangeable outside of oil markets or, as nottheowl suggested, agriculture. There are always going to companies that have more market power than others, and they will always use it to compete. The fact that we can never achieve theoretical perfection says nothing bad about the free market, and nothing good about government.

As a final note, there are a few neo-Marxist die hards who claim to be economists. Most economists consider them to be quacks on crack. They might be nominated for Treasury Secretary when a Dem is in charge, but otherwise the only people who care what they have to say are the editorial staff at the NYT or the WaPo. These are the people who are prattling on about "market failures" (once again, misusing a term that has a very specific meaning,) when they try to explain how their policies were not responsible for whatever disaster just occurred, it was the market.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on April 30, 2010, 05:48:38 pm

No there were not major trade relations between the WW2 belligerent before the conflict, most of the countries were engaged in economic protectionism...

... So yes, Trade diminish the likelyhood of war because it makes it more expensive that it would be otherwise and make you more enemies than you planned

Diminishing the likelihood of war is not the same as eliminating it. It is true that America and China are a lot less likely to go to war because China depends on us for a market, and we depend on them for cheap goods and government loans.

However, let me point out one simple fact: If people considered their economic interests primarily, there would never have been a war in the history of humankind. Hitler could have bought resources much more cheaply than he could have conquered them. He didn't. The Japanese could have lived much easier lives if they had never invaded China and we had never slapped an oil embargo on them because of it. They did it anyway. War is an economic loser, but it still happens.

As a final note, many of the protectionist trade barriers that arose because of Smoot-Hawley had been reduced or eliminated during the course of the FDR administration. The one good thing he did, aside from WWII. Goods were flowing. France was not particularly happy with Germany, but there was still a huge amount of trade flowing between them. America was Japan's primary trading partner before the war, and a major trading partner for Germany.
Title: Re: Trade + Peace?
Post by: Brugle on April 30, 2010, 07:20:22 pm
Minarchist societies with some police, military and a judicial system would have almost all of the efficiencies of an AnCap society,

I don't think you realize how important security and conflict resolution services are to a modern society.  A free or semi-free society may not need them much, but they do need them to work well when they are needed.  Turning those functions over to a government will mean that those functions will be done badly.  At best, much of the wealth collected by violence and threats of violence will be wasted, much of what actually is used will be used for the wrong things, what is actually used for the right things will usually be too much or too little, and whatever benefits the system produces will mostly be for the politically powerful.  Or, much of what will be called security or conflict resolution services will be used to control and exploit the populace.  And there are not-so-good possibilities.

Let's say that the combination of waste, corruption, poor conflict resolution, and lack of security in a minarchist society causes a few percent lower economic growth per year.  It may not seem like much after a year or two, but it wouldn't take long for a free society to leave a statist one in the dust.

----

Much of your argument seems to be that a free society would not be able to defend itself against a huge attacking force.  I don't think anyone would disagree.  But you appear to forget that an unfree society also would not be able to defend itself against a huge attacking force.  Having a traditional government military is no guarantee of security.  If the US government decides to devote most of its resources to conquering Trinidad next year, I expect that it would succeed, whether or not Trinidad becomes a free society next week.

As long as there are a variety of governments (especially when some of them are known for murder, maiming, torture, theft, wanton destruction, and supporting other governments that do those things), it is unlikely that a free society would be cast as a bogeymen.  (Also, I expect that the leader(s) of an aggressive government would have private uses for a free society.)

A free society is not an attractive target.  With a government structure that can be taken over, a statist society is much easier to conquer.

A traditional (socialist) military may not offer the best defense.  Free people are remarkably good at finding solutions.

And even if a more-or-less traditional military would be useful, why would you want the government to run it?  Besides the obvious waste, fraud, and abuse, such a military would be used for the benefit of the politically powerful, not for the benefit of the populace as a whole.
Title: Re: Trade + Peace?
Post by: sams on May 01, 2010, 02:01:53 am
Much of your argument seems to be that a free society would not be able to defend itself against a huge attacking force.  I don't think anyone would disagree.  But you appear to forget that an unfree society also would not be able to defend itself against a huge attacking force.  Having a traditional government military is no guarantee of security.  If the US government decides to devote most of its resources to conquering Trinidad next year, I expect that it would succeed, whether or not Trinidad becomes a free society next week.

As long as there are a variety of governments (especially when some of them are known for murder, maiming, torture, theft, wanton destruction, and supporting other governments that do those things), it is unlikely that a free society would be cast as a bogeymen.  (Also, I expect that the leader(s) of an aggressive government would have private uses for a free society.)

I think you made an important point that Heilein don't want to recognise : Free or not almost no one can survive a massive onslaught, but He also move to the fallacy of assuming that for this reason a free society is not viable .... this like discarding some one for military recruitment because he can't lift 400 Kg and regardless of his performance.

We made some interesting point and Heilein should have a look at them :

1 - Resisting an extreme scenario attack is not a necessary condition of viability
2 - The Likely hood of such attack is lower because of the trade ties between the free society and various countries, including the aggressor.
3 - Point 2 means that there is a huge constituency that will oppose the war, just tell me when was the last time that 2 nations with mutual trade ties and wealthy went to war ?

@: Never sub-estimate the stupidity of human beings ... there will always be an idiot , but the technological tide is at the moment against the aggressor, just tell me when was the last time the US Navy moved to invade a wealthy country that could actually oppose it ?
Most of the US activities now are against third world poor and illiterate and almost inoffensive people, if the US offensive capabilities are such a marvel, why don't they mop up Iran now ? The answer is the cost.

Even if a free society wouldn't have centralized army, there is no reason why it wouldn't have the means to acquire some weapons to rise the cost of an attack, if most of the material is readily available. there is not need to attain a tactical victory to defeat the attack, delaying it sufficiently or destroying one of the centre piece of the enemy apparatus, such has an aircraft carrier, would force the attacker to desist .... especially if in the mean time millions of people around the globe have assets on the line.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: nottheowl on May 01, 2010, 04:53:16 am
The whole argument about a "perfectly efficient free market" is pointless, because both sides are not using the same terms. Neither of you is actually suggesting that socialism is good, or better than the free market.

Heinlein Libertarian is correct, I was using the terms as economists define them, or at least as I understand economists to define them. Sams, I defer to HL on recommending literature, since he's the pro.

I'm a mathematician, not an economist... why do have the urge to add "Damn it, Jim?"

My copy of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" has arrived! Saving it for the commute Tuesday.

Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: wdg3rd on May 01, 2010, 12:27:37 pm
The whole argument about a "perfectly efficient free market" is pointless, because both sides are not using the same terms. Neither of you is actually suggesting that socialism is good, or better than the free market.

Heinlein Libertarian is correct, I was using the terms as economists define them, or at least as I understand economists to define them. Sams, I defer to HL on recommending literature, since he's the pro.

I'm a mathematician, not an economist... why do have the urge to add "Damn it, Jim?"

My copy of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" has arrived! Saving it for the commute Tuesday.



"Heinlein_Libertarian" is an idiot with no understanding of real economics (though he can undoubtedly spout tons of equations on the subject that mean nothing).  Per his words, he's recently out of the army and now teaches public school.  (I guess he got a degree for the latter -- Heinlein himself had some words about degrees in "education", and in his non-fiction, not his stories.

Why the f u c k are you holding off on reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?  It's the weekend.  That book is worth reading during your "leisure" time.  Reading it during your commute, you'll miss your stop.  Trust me on this -- when I was first reading it over 40 years ago in 6th grade (during the first season of Star trek), I walked four blocks past my school and had to turn around -- that school was two blocks from home, and I was in my 7th (including kindergarten) year there.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: nottheowl on May 01, 2010, 03:45:44 pm
You're clearly a passionate person, wdg3rd, and have whetted my appetite! Unfortunately my time isn't my own this weekend. Forum time is snatched during tea breaks. I promise to give it my full attention, and if I miss that stop, I'm prepared to live with that.

A respect for equations is something of a sine qua non in  my profession. They're just models based on assumptions, as are the verbal arguments used in the forum- but better behaved, and more easily limited and disproved. This is a strength, not a weakness.

What would you consider "real economics"? Surely this is also an academic discipline?
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on May 02, 2010, 01:35:00 am
What would you consider "real economics"? Surely this is also an academic discipline?

Most freedom loving people, from anarchist to libertarians, tend see Austrian Economics has the ''real'' thing, especially the contribution of Hayek and Mises.

Mises point was that economics is about human action and Hayek that economies are complex system product of the human mind but not of the human desire and therefore knowledge is dispersed among all the actors ... this why most have suspicion about Keynes like formulas and equations  ;)

But some Austrians like Milton Friedman made use of statistic and stuff of the kind, but was more for his academic work than to his contribution to the movement of liberty.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: nottheowl on May 02, 2010, 08:57:15 am
Possibly mathematics hasn't yet caught up with the Austrian School, rather than the other way around. I suspect that if it could be put on a quantitative footing, it would approach the fictional psychohistory in its power.

Possibly an application of topological methods, perhaps even a return to catastrophe theory?

(A collective indrawing of breath amongst mathematicians in the community- he has spoken the name of the black mathematics! Smite him!)

 
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Brugle on May 02, 2010, 12:32:19 pm
But some Austrians like Milton Friedman made use of statistic and stuff of the kind, but was more for his academic work than to his contribution to the movement of liberty.

Milton Friedman was a great proponent of liberty in many areas (he deserves a good part of the credit for ending the US draft), but he was not an Austrian economist.  He was a monetarist of the Chicago school, believing that the government should control money.

There is no precise definition of Austrian economics.  The Wikipedia article isn't too bad (for Wikipedia).
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on May 02, 2010, 12:48:34 pm
Milton Friedman was a great proponent of liberty in many areas (he deserves a good part of the credit for ending the US draft), but he was not an Austrian economist.  He was a monetarist of the Chicago school, believing that the government should control money.

Milton Friedman changed is position about money, later in his life, after reaching the conclusion that government can't provide a stable monetary  supply. He even joked that the FED should be replaced by a computer which will print a constant amount of notes  ;D

There is no precise definition of Austrian economics.  The Wikipedia article isn't too bad (for Wikipedia).

I think that in an historical sense Mitlon can be considered an Austrian, having founded the Mont Pelerin society with Hayek and Mises. But his work is much in line the chicago schools indeed.

There indeed a poor definition of what is an ''Austrian'', but in fact it kind of jokingly way of people to describe Mises and Hayek in the 1930's .... that they after that adopted.

What define an ''Austrian'' ? Certainly not unanimity ! even in the days of the mont pelerin society Mises would get mad even at his best student if he add a ''socialist'' leaning idea, so we can imagine that he would barely tolerate Friedman ideas on money. Rothbare also engaged in criticism of Hayek masterworks such ''The constitution of Freedom'' ... and even now each ''Founding Austrian'' have generated a branch of the Austrian school :
- Extremist Mises Institute, just like Mises himself
- Hayekian like Cato Institute ... with tolerance to Friedman like indulgence to the Chicago branch
- Rothbare like anarchist tipe, like Block

But the central tenet that keep the whole thing togueter is the primacy of individual freedom, which keep Milton Friedman in the Austrian camp. If you see his ''free to choose series'', by far much more influencial than his academic work, you will see that his central argument is about freedom. Friedman offsprings, Sowell and Williams, are pretty much in the Austrian camp also so for me is Austrian.

The contemporary Chigago type, however, are more focalized in efficiency, and this in this context that they may help the Austrians sometimes ... but there is nothing consistent in their approach to the question of liberty.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Brugle on May 02, 2010, 03:24:10 pm
Milton Friedman ... joked that the FED should be replaced by a computer which will print a constant amount of notes  ;D
He wasn't joking, and he wasn't suggesting that the FED be dismantled.  What he wanted to do was replace the arbitrary (and often counterproductive) changing policies of the FED with well-defined rules that could be administered by a computer.  (This might mean the firing of many people who worked for the FED, but it would not change the FED's control of money.)  If Milton Friedman ever supported a free market in money, I'm not aware of it.

I think that in an historical sense Mitlon can be considered an Austrian, having founded the Mont Pelerin society with Hayek and Mises. But his work is much in line the chicago schools indeed.
The Mont Pelerin society was not an Austrian economic organization.  It included (and includes) people who are not economists and economists who were not Austrians (such as Milton Friedman).

An economist who advocates for freedom may or may not be an Austrian economist.
each ''Founding Austrian'' have generated a branch of the Austrian school :
- Extremist Mises Institute, just like Mises himself
- Hayekian like Cato Institute ... with tolerance to Friedman like indulgence to the Chicago branch
- Rothbare like anarchist tipe, like Block
This is ridiculous.  Mises (and later Rothbard, Block, and others economists associated with the Mises Institute) use Austrian methodology (in a general sense) and are therefore Austrians.  Milton Friedman did not use Austrian methodology (in a general sense) and was therefore not an Austrian.  The Cato Institute is not primarily an economics organization so is not considered either Austrian or non-Austrian, although there may be Austrian and non-Austrian economists associated with the Cato Institute.

But the central tenet that keep the whole thing togueter is the primacy of individual freedom, which keep Milton Friedman in the Austrian camp.
I suppose this is your central error.  Austrians favor freedom since they favor peace and prosperity, which depend on freedom (by Austrian analysis).  However, someone who favors freedom is not necessarily an Austrian.  Milton Friedman favored freedom (for the most part), but was not an Austrian economist.

It's hard enough making a case for freedom against the deliberate (or ignorant) obfuscation of opponents.  Please don't add to those difficulties.  As Sandy said recently, words have meaning.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on May 02, 2010, 04:43:14 pm
It's hard enough making a case for freedom against the deliberate (or ignorant) obfuscation of opponents.  Please don't add to those difficulties.  As Sandy said recently, words have meaning.

Chicago type economists are ''opponents'' ?   ???

Wrong doesn't make you an evil person, I think people must appreciate that error is part of scholar careers. I just think that although Chicago type or any other who are not ''pure austrians'' for you, might make fundamentals errors, but it doesn't mean that their whole research or contribution is inherently wrong.

About Friedman support of free money, check this link :

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/CompetingMoneySupplies.html (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/CompetingMoneySupplies.html)

Yes Words have meaning, and throwing around ''opponent'' at any one is just plain counter productive and far to low. There are not perfect economics or perfect people, so despite his imperfections Milton is Austrian in my eyes ... so sue me ::)
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Brugle on May 02, 2010, 07:57:49 pm
It's hard enough making a case for freedom against the deliberate (or ignorant) obfuscation of opponents.  Please don't add to those difficulties.  As Sandy said recently, words have meaning.

Chicago type economists are ''opponents'' ?
No.  Chicago-school economists support freedom (to a great extent), even though they are not Austrian economists.  Why do you find that difficult to understand?

What I said was that opponents of freedom sometimes deliberately (or ignorantly) obfuscate, and I asked you to avoid that practice.  Confusing the meaning of words plays into the hands of those who have no rational arguments.  For example, if you convince someone that "Austrian" means "supporting freedom", when that person sees that one of Bryan Caplan's popular essays is titled "Why I am not an Austrian Economist", they might think (incorrectly) that Bryan Caplan opposes freedom.

Milton is Austrian in my eyes ... so sue me
If you persist on giving a term a meaning that is different from the meaning that the rest of the world uses, neither I nor (I'd guess) anyone else will do anything to stop you, but I and (I'd guess) other people will note that fact.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on May 02, 2010, 10:36:01 pm
The Chicago School economists are "fresh-water Keynesians"; their entire methodology differs from the Austrian school of economics. Milton Friedman was sometimes a proponent of libertarian-seeming ideas, but his entire philosophical underpinning differed.

Let's take one of the obvious differences: monetary inflation. To his credit, Milton did a lot of research and concluded that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" - and he then advocated a certain degree of inflation as if it were a good thing.

The Austrian School starts with the definition of inflation as a monetary phenomenon as a premise; there is no need to "prove" a definition. It then explored the effects of increases in the money supply, and concluded that these are about as "useful" as the effects of a dangerous drug; inflation skews economic decisions and allocations of resources, creating unsustainable booms which then collapse. AFAIK, Milton Friedman never got on board with this line of analysis; if he had, he would have advocated a free market in money, not control by government agencies or by computer.

The Socialist Calculation Problem applies with equal force to the question "what is the price of money?" as to "what is the price of other goods and services?" - The Austrian School recognizes this; the Chicago (freshwater) Keynesians and the Krugmanian (salt-water) Keynesians do not.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on May 03, 2010, 10:21:15 am
The Chicago School economists are "fresh-water Keynesians"; their entire methodology differs from the Austrian school of economics. Milton Friedman was sometimes a proponent of libertarian-seeming ideas, but his entire philosophical underpinning differed.

Let's take one of the obvious differences: monetary inflation. To his credit, Milton did a lot of research and concluded that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" - and he then advocated a certain degree of inflation as if it were a good thing.

The Austrian School starts with the definition of inflation as a monetary phenomenon as a premise; there is no need to "prove" a definition. It then explored the effects of increases in the money supply, and concluded that these are about as "useful" as the effects of a dangerous drug; inflation skews economic decisions and allocations of resources, creating unsustainable booms which then collapse. AFAIK, Milton Friedman never got on board with this line of analysis; if he had, he would have advocated a free market in money, not control by government agencies or by computer.

The Socialist Calculation Problem applies with equal force to the question "what is the price of money?" as to "what is the price of other goods and services?" - The Austrian School recognizes this; the Chicago (freshwater) Keynesians and the Krugmanian (salt-water) Keynesians do not.

I have no intention to pick a fight about this .... I watched some Friedman lectures and performances and I don't feel much a difference to Hayek, which I'm reading the books .... maybe they differ on metodology .... this is like arguying wether a Hydrogene or Nuclear bomb is more effective to take out a target .... the only sure thing is that the target won't exist in the end.

Was great
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Scott on May 03, 2010, 10:45:59 pm
sams, your terminology is simply confused, through no ill will on your part.

Yes, there are many similarities in policy proposals between Friedman and Mises and their respective followers, and there are also a few important differences. But the differences in methodology between the Chicago and Austrian schools are not trivial, they are foundational, and they define the difference between the two camps.

Calling Friedman an "Austrian" is like calling a tuna a dolphin, because they both swim in temperate and tropical oceans, tend to travel together, and eat mackerel.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: nottheowl on May 04, 2010, 01:35:52 am
If any other readers are pleasantly bewildered by the proliferation of economist "types", may I recommend the following article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?pagewanted=all

Old news to many, I'm sure, but it helped me. It seems that the most profound division is between Friedman-ian and Keynes-ian economics. Fresh and saltwater economists are different, but not (apparently) different enough!
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on May 04, 2010, 02:32:12 am
I would accept Krugman's authority on salt-water keynesians; he might not be horribly wrong about fresh-water ( Chicago ) Keynesians; but about Austrians, he hasn't got a clue. Best to get over to mises.org to learn about the Austrian School.

The Wikipedia Austrian School article seems Ok ( I'm glancing at it at midnight, so don't expect my most critical review. )

The difference is methodological. Austrian school economics begins with individual action, not with aggregates. At midnight, I am not going to try to summarize the Austrian critique of what they describe as the scientistic approach to aggregates; I'll just say that scientistic is not scientific; it's a misapplication and bastardization of methods which are appropriate for describing aggregates of identical particles, but not for describing individual people who make choices.

When it comes to money, Austrians come to a radically different - and, in my opinion far more correct - analysis. Inflation, defined as an increase in money supply, causes distortions in the structure of production, which cause malinvestments and a boom-bust cycle.

Keynesians, whether freshwater ( like Friedman ) or saltwater ( like Krugman ) argue about "how much inflation is good for the economy." If Austrian theory is correct - and i believe it is - no inflation is good for the economy. The money supply cannot and should not be "managed" by the government or central bank. The attempts at management inevitably result in problems; this is merely an application of the "economic calculation problem" - there's a wikipedia page on that topic, to which I refer you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem


Friedman advocated free markets, sort of - but not too much freedom. He promoted school vouchers, and was instrumental in the Chilean Social Security system, which is a forced savings program. This is something like a forced sex program - you will still have sex, but I get to choose your partners and positions. I may generously permit you to choose among two or three or even twenty politically-connected partners. The same thing with school vouchers - you get to choose from those schools which meet my approval.

Girl, why do you call this an arranged marriage? See how free you are! I have made arrangements with 20 suitors, all of whom are perfectly acceptable - to me. Choose one, and do not try my patience!

Some folks - including Milton Friedman - tend to peddle the illusion of freedom. They think that governments can co-opt freedom and inject "just a little bit" of control "to make things come out better."

"just a little bit of control" is like being "just a little bit" pregnant.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on May 04, 2010, 03:46:10 am
Keynesians, whether freshwater ( like Friedman ) or saltwater ( like Krugman ) argue about "how much inflation is good for the economy."

Just for the record Friedman himself didn't espoused this conclusion, He just said that because inflation is a monetary phenomenon, there must be a way to manage .... he just afterwards discovered that the best would be by free market in money.

But anyway I stand corrected, I have been reading Hayek Nobel Prize lecture and have watched a video of Hayek commenting about Milton, and it seems that Milton methodological problem is the ''Pretence of Knowledge'' ie trying to measure impossible like the total quantity of money and focusing to much in statistical variable.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html)

Now I understand that there is a difference between the two, but I still like Milton charisma and performances.

I think that Milton position about Vouchers were correct, because of the huge difficulties involved, you guys must understand that the US attitude is way more backward than even my country, were we are ex-commies, but you guys have succeed in destroying private schooling  :-\
Because of the huge difficulties of trying to reform or abolish public schools, Milton though that a quicker solution would be to recreate a competitive structure system by tying vouchers to the students, and it seems that such system works well in Belgium .... no public schools would be better but you know what are the chances of getting to that point.

About the Chilean Social security system .... looks like Chilly will always be Milton curse  ;D Nha no hope, the person responsible for the Chilean social security system is currently a senior fellow at Cato, José Piñera, in relation to the other option, a total socialist US like social security, this was the best deal chile could ever get.
http://www.cato.org/people/jose-pinera (http://www.cato.org/people/jose-pinera)

But on the subject of Chilly, the connection with Friedman is that many young Chillean economist were trained at Chicago, during the sixties and Milton Friedman went there one time to give some lectures .... but it looks like most people think that he had a telepathic link directly to Pinochet brain  ::)

You can check this video, of Milton against 3 icelandic morons and you will see that the Chile connection is always bough on to discredit him >:(

From 7:30 onwards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJNxg3ZhXf8&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJNxg3ZhXf8&feature=related)

The whole clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcyQn9c0ujU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcyQn9c0ujU&feature=related)
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: SandySandfort on May 04, 2010, 11:16:10 am
... the differences in methodology between the Chicago and Austrian schools are not trivial, they are foundational, and they define the difference between the two camps.

True. In addition, for me, the most definitive difference between schools of economic though centers on the concept of "value." Once you understand a system's idea of value, the rest falls in line.

Communism is based on the (stupid) labor theory of value. Mercantilism is a bit more complicated, but exports represent value. In other words, you are doing well when you send all of your true wealth overseas! The Chicago school works in "utiles" (I think that is right),

The Austrians have the "subjective" theory of value. As such, value cannot be quantified (sorry, nottheowl; I think that was you), only placed in order of importance. You cannot say, "I like pizza, 1.73 times more then I like steak." All you can say is, "(at this moment) I like pizza more than steak." This solves the "equal exchange" problem. If apples have the same global value as oranges, why should the apple farmer trade some of his apples for some of the orange farmer's oranges? They are the same, right? With the subjective theory of value, the apple farmer places a higher value on some oranges, the orange farmer has a higher value for some of the apples. At the end of the trade, they have both gained in value, subjectively. (This also address the concept of "exploitation" that is central to most theories of value and their resultant economic analyses.)

 
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on May 04, 2010, 03:05:54 pm
True. In addition, for me, the most definitive difference between schools of economic though centers on the concept of "value." Once you understand a system's idea of value, the rest falls in line.

Communism is based on the (stupid) labor theory of value. Mercantilism is a bit more complicated, but exports represent value. In other words, you are doing well when you send all of your true wealth overseas! The Chicago school works in "utiles" (I think that is right),

Yes the Theory of value is a central piece of understanding economics, a person can be libertarian but he don't grasp relative the question of value or worse get the Marxian one of labor value it become hopeless. This the most fundamental dissagrements that I found with ''left-libertarian'', a weird kind of bird I discovered through the internet along with anarcho-communist  :-\
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Brugle on May 04, 2010, 05:01:22 pm
True. In addition, for me, the most definitive difference between schools of economic though centers on the concept of "value." Once you understand a system's idea of value, the rest falls in line.

Communism is based on the (stupid) labor theory of value. Mercantilism is a bit more complicated, but exports represent value. In other words, you are doing well when you send all of your true wealth overseas! The Chicago school works in "utiles" (I think that is right),

Yes the Theory of value is a central piece of understanding economics, a person can be libertarian but he don't grasp relative the question of value or worse get the Marxian one of labor value it become hopeless. This the most fundamental dissagrements that I found with ''left-libertarian'', a weird kind of bird I discovered through the internet along with anarcho-communist  :-\

sams,

Three bits of free advice:  1) Don't get hung up on terminology.  2) For most of us, a few hours of reading gives at best a superficial understanding.  3) Distrust free advice.

Some people who call themselves left-libertarian accept the labor theory of value, but there are also subjectivists who call themselves left-libertarian (including people that appear to me to be top-notch thinkers).

I consider "left" and "right" (as political labels) to be confusing.  I'd never use either term to describe myself, except perhaps with extensive qualifiers.  Terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" can be useful (in either a very general sense or when it's clear from context what is meant), but also often lead to confusion.  Sometimes a person deliberately causes confusion, but an unclear statement may be the result of carelessness.  I've been guilty of ambiguity many times, even when I tried hard to be clear!

Murray Rothbard has argued that as the terms "left" and "right" were originally used, conservatism is right-wing, classical liberalism (libertarianism) is left-wing, and socialism is a middle-of-the-road mixture of left-wing goals and right-wing means.  I like that usage of the terms, but I wouldn't use them that way without explaining them first.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Sean Roach on May 04, 2010, 06:32:46 pm
I am not an economist.

With that said, using inflationary currency during a high inflation period seems akin to bartering with milk in July.
The longer you hold it, the less of its value you have.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on May 05, 2010, 04:20:57 am
Three bits of free advice:  1) Don't get hung up on terminology.  2) For most of us, a few hours of reading gives at best a superficial understanding.  3) Distrust free advice.

thanks, looks like the stuff is really complex  :-\

I found that the safest criterion is whether one self ideas are inclusive or exclusive, if your concept of anarchy doesn't make it possible to have other type of anarchy running then there might be a problem.

But a distrustful thanks .... after all I learned from point 3  ;)
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: quadibloc on May 05, 2010, 08:51:33 am
Obviously, from a libertarian perspective, inflation is simply theft. When I write a check to you for fifty dollars, I don't get to say that, next week, it will only be good for twenty-five dollars.

Given the existing situation of the school system, however, school vouchers are an increase in freedom. It may be socialistic in principle to require everyone to pay taxes to support a public school system, but if some children grow up to be adults with limited job prospects because their parents failed to buy them an education, one can expect an increase in crime as a result.

Of course, part of this has to do with the importance of credentials in a society with no open frontier.
Title: Assumptions.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on May 05, 2010, 09:14:42 am

"Heinlein_Libertarian" is an idiot with no understanding of real economics (though he can undoubtedly spout tons of equations on the subject that mean nothing). 


We have the same economic philosophy, assuming that you support free markets. I also have a number of excellent equations I could discuss, if you like. My idiocy I leave open to the forum for discussion. I will only suggest that you read what I actually say, as opposed to what people say I said. Quite frequently, they turn out to be very different things.


Per his words, he's recently out of the army and now teaches public school.  (I guess he got a degree for the latter -- Heinlein himself had some words about degrees in "education", and in his non-fiction, not his stories.


Actually, I have a PhD in Economics, and I teach it at a University. You got the 'public' part right.

Heinlein was right about degrees in education. Thomas Sowell has an interesting book out on the subject of Education degree programs called Inside American Education that is worth taking a look at if anybody reading this is interested. Either that, or just take a look at some of the YouTube videos on how they teach kids math these days, and you will be suitably appalled.

As for 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," it is a great book, and well worth reading for those who have not done so at least ten times already. It does, however, include a government that organizes the resistance against the invasion from Earth.
Title: Re: Assumptions.
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on May 05, 2010, 10:21:28 am
[...] I have a PhD in Economics, and I teach it at a University.

Paul Krugman has a PhD in Economics, is a Professor at Princeton (although it's not clear that he is currently teaching), and has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics.  He is also an idiot (in the true sense of the word) and does not understand real economics ("macroeconomics" is not truly economics at all, but rather a branch of politics).

[...] 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," [...] is a great book, and well worth reading for those who have not done so at least ten times already. It does, however, include a government that organizes the resistance against the invasion from Earth.

This is only true for some, relatively obscure, definitions of "government".  Those who participate do so voluntarily; the  "leadership" is deemed so only because those who follow it accept it on an individual basis.
Title: Re: Trade + Peace?
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on May 05, 2010, 10:37:15 am

I don't think you realize how important security and conflict resolution services are to a modern society.  A free or semi-free society may not need them much, but they do need them to work well when they are needed.  Turning those functions over to a government will mean that those functions will be done badly.  At best, much of the wealth collected by violence and threats of violence will be wasted, much of what actually is used will be used for the wrong things, what is actually used for the right things will usually be too much or too little, and whatever benefits the system produces will mostly be for the politically powerful.  Or, much of what will be called security or conflict resolution services will be used to control and exploit the populace.

Let's say that the combination of waste, corruption, poor conflict resolution, and lack of security in a minarchist society causes a few percent lower economic growth per year.  It may not seem like much after a year or two, but it wouldn't take long for a free society to leave a statist one in the dust.


Imagine a hobo steals your car, and crashes it into the ocean. He happens to be a very odd hobo in that he has a lot of cash. How  do you recover the value of your property from him in a society where rulings do not have the force of law?

Most of the people on this forum will say shunning this person (refusing to trade with them,) until they pay up will force the bum to do so. I disagree. Some people will not get the message that this person needs to be shunned. Some will disagree with it. Some will ignore it and deal with them anyway for money, or because of perceived moral/religious obligations. An alternative economy for those who have been shunned is likely to arise. Finally, there are always going to be gangs. If the local Crips want to buy something from your store, are you going to tell them no even if they outnumber you 100:1?

If shunning does not work, you will have to use force. What if the hobo has quite a lot of well-armed friends? What if the hobo is a member of a "neighborhood youth organization" like the Crips or the Bloods? Sure, you can hire a security company to try to recover your property, but how much will it cost to take on an entire gang?

What if the hobo has no money? Indentured servitude? What if they won't work, no matter the arrangement?

Consider a number of other situations where government could intervene, but an AnCap society would have to sit back and take it:

- Wife beating. Most spouses refuse to file complaints.
- Abusive parents: Who can take the kid if they are being abused? Who can order a test on that child in the case of suspected beatings or molestation? If a group of people decide to buy a compound, raise their own food and materials so that they do not need outside trade to survive, and molest their children, how can shunning stop them?
- Child prostitutes/porn.
-Polio or Smallpox: How do you force people to take a vaccine in AnCap? You can't, without violating the rules. If they refuse to do so, they are putting you and your family at serious risk of crippling/fatal disease. Would I be able to shoot Jenny McCarthy is self-defense? What good does threatening to shun somebody do for you or your family if they have already exposed you to whatever disease they are carrying? What about people who refuse to take treatments for chronic diseases like TB?
-Terrorism and Enemy Infiltrators: Tapping a phone or breaking in to a house to search it against the owner's will has got to get you shunned, right?

Shunning is the fundamental mechanism by which AnCap societies enforce the rules. If it fails, AnCap will have no rules. I argue that shunning will not work, and that AnCap will fail because of it. It's true that government is slow, inefficient, and quite frequently ineffective. In the cases I cited above, it's still the only way to go. Government needs to have very narrowly-drawn limits. The smaller and less-powerful it is, the less incentive for corruption. In specific, I advocate for a government that does not interfere unless somebody is injuring the rights of another without that person's express or implied informed consent. This will require eternal vigilance on the part of the populace to make sure that the people they elect are not farting around, but it prevents the worst abuses of government while similarly preventing chaos.

Anarchy tends to be a lot more like Somalia and Afghanistan than EfT.
Title: Re: Trade + Peace?
Post by: sams on May 05, 2010, 11:09:21 am

I don't think you realize how important security and conflict resolution services are to a modern society.  A free or semi-free society may not need them much, but they do need them to work well when they are needed.  Turning those functions over to a government will mean that those functions will be done badly.  At best, much of the wealth collected by violence and threats of violence will be wasted, much of what actually is used will be used for the wrong things, what is actually used for the right things will usually be too much or too little, and whatever benefits the system produces will mostly be for the politically powerful.  Or, much of what will be called security or conflict resolution services will be used to control and exploit the populace.

Let's say that the combination of waste, corruption, poor conflict resolution, and lack of security in a minarchist society causes a few percent lower economic growth per year.  It may not seem like much after a year or two, but it wouldn't take long for a free society to leave a statist one in the dust.


Imagine a hobo steals your car, and crashes it into the ocean. He happens to be a very odd hobo in that he has a lot of cash. How  do you recover the value of your property from him in a society where rulings do not have the force of law?

Most of the people on this forum will say shunning this person (refusing to trade with them,) until they pay up will force the bum to do so. I disagree. Some people will not get the message that this person needs to be shunned. Some will disagree with it. Some will ignore it and deal with them anyway for money, or because of perceived moral/religious obligations. An alternative economy for those who have been shunned is likely to arise. Finally, there are always going to be gangs. If the local Crips want to buy something from your store, are you going to tell them no even if they outnumber you 100:1?

If shunning does not work, you will have to use force. What if the hobo has quite a lot of well-armed friends? What if the hobo is a member of a "neighborhood youth organization" like the Crips or the Bloods? Sure, you can hire a security company to try to recover your property, but how much will it cost to take on an entire gang?

What if the hobo has no money? Indentured servitude? What if they won't work, no matter the arrangement?

Consider a number of other situations where government could intervene, but an AnCap society would have to sit back and take it:

- Wife beating. Most spouses refuse to file complaints.
- Abusive parents: Who can take the kid if they are being abused? Who can order a test on that child in the case of suspected beatings or molestation? If a group of people decide to buy a compound, raise their own food and materials so that they do not need outside trade to survive, and molest their children, how can shunning stop them?
- Child prostitutes/porn.
-Polio or Smallpox: How do you force people to take a vaccine in AnCap? You can't, without violating the rules. If they refuse to do so, they are putting you and your family at serious risk of crippling/fatal disease. Would I be able to shoot Jenny McCarthy is self-defense? What good does threatening to shun somebody do for you or your family if they have already exposed you to whatever disease they are carrying? What about people who refuse to take treatments for chronic diseases like TB?
-Terrorism and Enemy Infiltrators: Tapping a phone or breaking in to a house to search it against the owner's will has got to get you shunned, right?

Shunning is the fundamental mechanism by which AnCap societies enforce the rules. If it fails, AnCap will have no rules. I argue that shunning will not work, and that AnCap will fail because of it. It's true that government is slow, inefficient, and quite frequently ineffective. In the cases I cited above, it's still the only way to go. Government needs to have very narrowly-drawn limits. The smaller and less-powerful it is, the less incentive for corruption. In specific, I advocate for a government that does not interfere unless somebody is injuring the rights of another without that person's express or implied informed consent. This will require eternal vigilance on the part of the populace to make sure that the people they elect are not farting around, but it prevents the worst abuses of government while similarly preventing chaos.

Anarchy tends to be a lot more like Somalia and Afghanistan than EfT.

You better read a book, I assure you you will have better stuff to crunch your brain .... start by the Not so wild West

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf (http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf)
Title: Re: Trade + Peace?
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on May 05, 2010, 11:16:01 am
Imagine a hobo steals your car, and crashes it into the ocean. He happens to be a very odd hobo in that he has a lot of cash. How  do you recover the value of your property from him in a society where rulings do not have the force of law?

You or your proxy simply take it.  Since the tort has already been initiated against you, the use of force is permitted.

Quote
Most of the people on this forum will say shunning this person (refusing to trade with them,) until they pay up will force the bum to do so. I disagree. Some people will not get the message that this person needs to be shunned. Some will disagree with it. Some will ignore it and deal with them anyway for money, or because of perceived moral/religious obligations. An alternative economy for those who have been shunned is likely to arise. Finally, there are always going to be gangs. If the local Crips want to buy something from your store, are you going to tell them no even if they outnumber you 100:1?

Shunning is perfectly acceptable.  Perhaps not effective in most cases, but effective.  As for being outnumbered 100:1, simply recruit fellow store owners (who will certainly have the same issue) to even the odds.  That group may then hire others to assist, of course.

Quote
If shunning does not work, you will have to use force. What if the hobo has quite a lot of well-armed friends? What if the hobo is a member of a "neighborhood youth organization" like the Crips or the Bloods? Sure, you can hire a security company to try to recover your property, but how much will it cost to take on an entire gang?

I am aware of no one having stated that the use of force as a response is not acceptable; this appears to be a "straw man" argument.  As for the cost, match the cost of acting against not acting, and divide it by the number of other victims.  Think like a real economist.

Quote
What if the hobo has no money? Indentured servitude? What if they won't work, no matter the arrangement?
They will almost assuredly starve.

Quote
Consider a number of other situations where government could intervene, but an AnCap society would have to sit back and take it:

- Wife beating. Most spouses refuse to file complaints.
-

No complaint, nobody's business.  Stupidity is its own punishment (besides, what if she is a masochist?)

Quote
Abusive parents: Who can take the kid if they are being abused? Who can order a test on that child in the case of suspected beatings or molestation? If a group of people decide to buy a compound, raise their own food and materials so that they do not need outside trade to survive, and molest their children, how can shunning stop them?

If the child chooses to leave, the parents have no authority to stop them.  If they attempt to do so (or forcibly return them after the fact), then of course force may be used.

Quote
- Child prostitutes/porn.

Non-consensual sex is use of force, and may be responded to with force.   The rights to any and all "porn" generated as a result (plus any remuneration for the same) becomes the property of the child[ren] against whom the tort was generated, who may do what they wish with it.  They may choose to destroy it (quite likely), continue to sell it and profit from the proceeds (the original act may have been non-consensual, but after the fact the victims may choose to extract value from the results), or whatever else they may decide.  Of course, if multiple victims are involved, one may not choose to sell material containing others, without their consent.  See how easy this is?

Quote
-Polio or Smallpox: How do you force people to take a vaccine in AnCap? You can't, without violating the rules. If they refuse to do so, they are putting you and your family at serious risk of crippling/fatal disease. Would I be able to shoot Jenny McCarthy is self-defense? What good does threatening to shun somebody do for you or your family if they have already exposed you to whatever disease they are carrying? What about people who refuse to take treatments for chronic diseases like TB?
No one would force them to take the vaccine without committing a recognized tort.  However, wilfully passing on a disease without consent would itself be a tort, and hence actionable.

Quote
-Terrorism and Enemy Infiltrators: Tapping a phone or breaking in to a house to search it against the owner's will has got to get you shunned, right?

Since government is the primary sponsor if not actual actor in terrorism, this would be much less of a problem (if the US government didn't screw around abusing folks around the world, those in the US would have virtually no fear of terrorism today).

Tapping a phone or breaking into a house would likely result in the death or severe injury of the person engaging in it if caught in the act, and subject to paying full compensation if discovered after the fact.

Quote
Shunning is the fundamental mechanism by which AnCap societies enforce the rules.

Repeating this BIG LIE repeatedly will not make it true.

Quote
If it fails, AnCap will have no rules. I argue that shunning will not work, and that AnCap will fail because of it. It's true that government is slow, inefficient, and quite frequently ineffective. In the cases I cited above, it's still the only way to go. Government needs to have very narrowly-drawn limits. The smaller and less-powerful it is, the less incentive for corruption. In specific, I advocate for a government that does not interfere unless somebody is injuring the rights of another without that person's express or implied informed consent. This will require eternal vigilance on the part of the populace to make sure that the people they elect are not farting around, but it prevents the worst abuses of government while similarly preventing chaos.

The responsive use of force is perfectly acceptable in an AnCap society.  That has been repeated consistently in this forum, and indeed in EFT itself from the beginning.  At this point, the one who refers to him or herself as "Heinlein Libertarian" is demonstrably not simply ignorant or an idiot; he or she is at best willfully ignorant or at worst deliberately practicing fraud.

Quote
Anarchy tends to be a lot more like Somalia and Afghanistan than EfT.

In these two cases the problem is not anarchy, but rather too much government, spawned by outside forces (in particular the US Government) pressing for some single person or group to speak for all residents, no matter what they may desire.   
Title: Re: Assumptions.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on May 05, 2010, 11:38:43 am

Paul Krugman has a PhD in Economics, is a Professor at Princeton (although it's not clear that he is currently teaching), and has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics.  He is also an idiot (in the true sense of the word) and does not understand real economics ("macroeconomics" is not truly economics at all, but rather a branch of politics).


I never said PhD's made you smart. In fact, it seems to do the opposite to a lot of people (Krugman is an excellent example, as is almost everybody who writes Op-Eds for the NYT.) It was meant to clarify that I do not have an Education degree.

Macroeconomics is a subject that seems to attract a lot of charlatans and closet politicians, but I would not dismiss the whole field as politics. As with any science that relies on the building of models to test a theory, there is a lot of room for subjectivity and tinkering. The recent scandals and revelations of deceit and fraud by the global warming crowd demonstrate this pretty clearly. Macroeconomic models tend to be taken out of context to serve political purposes pretty frequently, but this does not mean it is all politics. Studies of trade, cash flow variables, technology and its effect on productivity, etc. are all useful and basically nonpolitical. Most of the basic models and tools of the trade are learned in macroeconomics classes. Still, microeconomic questions are much more difficult for those with an agenda to manipulate.
Title: Re: Trade + Peace?
Post by: SandySandfort on May 05, 2010, 11:55:36 am
Quote from: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled link=topic=411.msg6027#msg6027
In these two cases [Somalia and Afghanistan
the problem is not anarchy, but rather too much government, spawned by outside forces (in particular the US Government) pressing for some single person or group to speak for all residents, no matter what they may desire.   

Pretty much the same deal they gave the American Indians. "Take me to your chief. If do not have a chief, one will be appointed for you an no cost." ("Well, not exactly no cost...")

BTW, NRNBR, great application of ZAP/libertarian/anarchist principles, in practice. All the "what-ifs" about ethical anarchism have straight-forward answers, if one just looks for them.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Brugle on May 05, 2010, 12:21:43 pm
Obviously, from a libertarian perspective, inflation is simply theft. When I write a check to you for fifty dollars, I don't get to say that, next week, it will only be good for twenty-five dollars.

Given the existing situation of the school system, however, school vouchers are an increase in freedom. It may be socialistic in principle to require everyone to pay taxes to support a public school system, but if some children grow up to be adults with limited job prospects because their parents failed to buy them an education, one can expect an increase in crime as a result.

Of course, part of this has to do with the importance of credentials in a society with no open frontier.

Your post assumes that children are educated in government schools.  The original purpose of modern government schools (those in the US were modeled on those in Prussia) was to prevent education (in a broad sense).  To a government, schools should produce good citizens, which means people who obey.  Education (in a broad sense) leads people to question the wisdom of orders, leading to a lack of enthusiasm in following orders and sometimes to opposition.  (Also, schools are operated to accustom children to countless hours of boredom.)  Naturally, governments wants citizens to have some skills (for example, a soldier should be able to read a "NO SMOKING" sign by an ammunition dump), but (to governments) critical thinking and real knowledge are undesirable traits in most of the populace.

When I was young, I occasionally read something like "most of my education was not in school" or even "I was educated in spite of school", and I was puzzled (since I certainly learned some things in school).  But eventually, when I realized how little I actually learned in school (and how much of that was false or misleading), I understood.

Like most questions of the living-justly-in-an-unjust-world sort, vouchers are problematic.  On the one hand, many children (especially the inner-city poor) would be immediately helped by vouchers.  On the other hand, vouchers would increase government control over private schools, harming educational opportunity in the long run.  Thus, libertarians can disagree about vouchers, although all (or almost all) would agree that the best solution would be the complete separation of school and state.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Sean Roach on May 05, 2010, 08:40:55 pm
In response to one of the points of the below case.
"Shunning" need not be "enforced".  If you are a known criminal, the shops MAY do business with you, but they will undoubtedly do what they could to protect their interests.  Do you tend to skip out on obligations?  People will refuse to give you advances, or possibly even any payment except one on completion of work.  Do you tend to steal?  Shops may view it a better deal to refuse you entry than try to sell to you and prevent you from helping yourself to their stuff at the same time.  The same goes for vandals.  Yes, someone will sell to them, as a value added.  At a markup.  So, you can't go in that store anymore.  Too bad.  Should have klept your hands to yourself.  For 20 bucks on top of the price of the item you CLAIM you want to purchase, I'll go in and buy it for you, and pocket the difference.
Except, I don't want to risk being stuck with stolen goods, since I'd have to give them up to the ACTUAL owner when he tracked this stuff down, so, just in case, I'm going to charge you double.  There's a good chance the original owner will be by to collect his property...in fact, make that triple.  I still need to turn a profit.

OH.  So you've never stolen HERE.  I understand.  Well, KleptoWatch(r) says you stole all the time back where you came from, so I'm not going to take the risk.  Leopards and spots and all.

The thing is, systems will develop to handle such issues.  If there's a market for it, someone will sell it.  There is already a market for credit reporting agencies, and this is similar enough to what they do to extrapolate.

Most of the people on this forum will say shunning this person (refusing to trade with them,) until they pay up will force the bum to do so. I disagree. Some people will not get the message that this person needs to be shunned. Some will disagree with it. Some will ignore it and deal with them anyway for money, or because of perceived moral/religious obligations. An alternative economy for those who have been shunned is likely to arise. Finally, there are always going to be gangs. If the local Crips want to buy something from your store, are you going to tell them no even if they outnumber you 100:1?
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on May 06, 2010, 04:02:05 am
Before crying "market failure" with respect to education, it would be wise to consider the research of E.G.West and Andrew J Coulson on the history of education. Mass-market education arrived _before_ the government got involved in education; in fact, governments often attempted to suppress education. England actually prohibited the education of Irish children; it was a capital offense. The response of the Irish is instructive; they established "hedge schools", itinerant preachers who would carry a few materials, gather children behind a hedge, and teach them. One would serve as a lookout; when a gendarme appeared, all would scatter. If it is possible to teach under such conditions, it is certainly possible for anyone who wants to learn to do so in an AnCap society.

More recently, consider the research of James Tooley on free-market education in contemporary Africa and India, in places which are much more poor than the U.S.S.A. Poor parents _choose_ to spend for private schools, instead of sending their children to "free" government schools. If they can afford to pay for education, one would have to be poor indeed to do without.

Government schools are terribly inefficient. I've mentioned often the accomplishments of my 8 year old grandson, who is now studying algebra. He spends far less time in home education than you would imagine - probably about a third of what government-schooled children do - but he is learning about 3 times as fast as they typically do. He may be on the far end of the bell curve, but home education typically shifts the entire curve; the typical student scores 30 percentile points higher than his or her peers. Furthermore, children of low socioeconomic status are doing nearly as well as those of high socioeconomic status, when home schooled. Home education is thus "the great equalizer" which was claimed as an advantage for government schools.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: quadibloc on May 06, 2010, 08:00:55 am
OH.  So you've never stolen HERE.  I understand.  Well, KleptoWatch(r) says you stole all the time back where you came from, so I'm not going to take the risk.  Leopards and spots and all.

The thing is, systems will develop to handle such issues.  If there's a market for it, someone will sell it.  There is already a market for credit reporting agencies, and this is similar enough to what they do to extrapolate.
Yes. Obviously, in an anarcho-capitalist society, there is not going to be a Young Offenders Act making it a crime to communicate the fact that someone was convicted of shoplifting (or, for that matter, rape or possibly even murder, if for some reason the case was not transferred to adult court) before he turned 18.

You or your proxy simply take it.  Since the tort has already been initiated against you, the use of force is permitted.
Well, yes. The objection, though, is how does anyone tell that you, in the act of simply taking something, are permissibly responding to a tort instead of committing a crime of theft? There are, of course, solutions offered to this one (bonded arbiters, bonded security agencies) in the An-Cap framework.

Since government is the primary sponsor if not actual actor in terrorism, this would be much less of a problem (if the US government didn't screw around abusing folks around the world, those in the US would have virtually no fear of terrorism today).
I think this is simply false.

Terrorism is the result of conservative Muslims wanting to impose Shari'a, "Islamic Law", under which non-Muslims are subject to abuse. The United States is a target of terrorists because it has refused to allow the Jews of Israel to be brought under Shari'a by force, not because the Muslim world has any legitimate complaints against the United States.

Your post assumes that children are educated in government schools.  The original purpose of modern government schools (those in the US were modeled on those in Prussia) was to prevent education (in a broad sense).  To a government, schools should produce good citizens, which means people who obey.  Education (in a broad sense) leads people to question the wisdom of orders, leading to a lack of enthusiasm in following orders and sometimes to opposition.  (Also, schools are operated to accustom children to countless hours of boredom.)  Naturally, governments wants citizens to have some skills (for example, a soldier should be able to read a "NO SMOKING" sign by an ammunition dump), but (to governments) critical thinking and real knowledge are undesirable traits in most of the populace.
These are valid points.

I would suspect, though, that the hours spent in school are indeed required for most people to learn basic skills. (Incidentally, the time required to learn to spell correctly might be compared to the effects of Chinese characters on Chinese society in reinforcing its authoritarianism. Would spelling reform be part of an An-Cap revolution?)

Of course, when government gets involved in education, politics gets involved too. Perhaps politicians don't want voters to have critical thinking skills that are too great. But parents often don't want that either, often because other sources of authority have influenced their desires. Maybe they're just doing the government's dirty work, but the most visible opponents of critical thinking in the schools seem to be the churches.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Brugle on May 06, 2010, 12:24:18 pm
not because the Muslim world has any legitimate complaints against the United States.
As just one of many, how about the death of approximately 500000 innocent Iraqi children that Madeleine Albright said was an acceptable cost for the US to make an empty political gesture?

I would suspect, though, that the hours spent in school are indeed required for most people to learn basic skills.
According to John Taylor Gatto, educators say that 30 hours of classroom instruction are sufficient to teach a typical child to read.  Yet government schools take orders of magnitude longer.  In a free society, schools that do that badly would quickly go bankrupt.

the most visible opponents of critical thinking in the schools seem to be the churches.
I don't know what you mean by "visible", but as far as I can tell, a typical student at a religious private school in the US learns somewhat more (at a much lower cost) that at a government school.  Note: I would be happy if schooling had little or no connection with religion.

The entire setup of government schools (which many private schools follow to a great extent) is designed to prevent critical thinking and instill obedience.  Hours of tedium, segregation by age, constant supervision, rigid schedules, etc, etc.  Under that assault, many children will decide that learning is boring.  Others might retain their curiosity but be overwhelmed by the barrage of unconnected "facts".   Minor changes in curricula make essentially no difference, given that environment.

For example, I read Starship Troopers as a young teenager, and what struck me most was the idea that philosophy could be useful.  (Not necessarily the philosophy presented by the History and Moral Philosophy teacher, philosophy in general.)  As far as I could remember (back then my memory was pretty good), that idea had never been suggested in my schooling up to that point.  And I don't think it was suggested in any of my schooling after that point, either.  I'm not saying that every school child should study epistemology and ethics and political philosophy, but I think that a typical high school graduate should be aware that those fields exist and offer useful answers to interesting questions.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on May 06, 2010, 01:08:38 pm
the most visible opponents of critical thinking in the schools seem to be the churches.

A widely exaggerated and unfunded claim  ::) People who send their kids to religious schools already share the said values or if they don't they do some extra homework with the kids.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Sean Roach on May 06, 2010, 01:46:19 pm
I believe he's referring to the complaints against the teaching of the theory of evolution and current calculations as to the age of the earth as hard inviolable fact, over the protests of those who hold to Genesis.

One point to make.
Some parents don't WANT education for their kids.  They want warehousing for their kids.  They want accolades through their kids.  School frequently takes a back seat to sports, and parents have been known to complain, loudly, when weather problems prevent school from operating.  (They have no other place to store their kids until evening.)

Those who home-school are something of a self-selected group.  It is hard to argue the current group of home-school families are either against, or even ambivalent, on education.  Even the children of parents who take part in such groups as the PTA show a marked advantage in grades.  Involvement has to be seen as a factor, be it in the total investment of home-schooling, or just keeping on top of things with the public school administrators and teachers.

Of course, I think the ambivalent and antagonistic among the public school crowd actively impede learning by the rest.  It's hard to study when someone else is too busy cutting up to let you hear the teacher.  It's easy to fall between the cracks when teachers have to focus so much effort on those who actively prefer to be elsewhere.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: nottheowl on May 06, 2010, 02:34:45 pm
A few days' absence has given me a lot more reading material!

At the risk of intruuding on the "Words" thread, let's see what my understanding or lack of it is;

Fresh water; The economy is a self-organising phenomenon in which humans participate. Mathematical models assuming efficient markets are a useful approximation to reality, and decisions can be made according to the predictions of these models. Empirical (including statistical) research is useful in gauging the success of a model retrospectively. Government intervention is discouraged as at best an additional variable, and at worst an attempt to interfere in a system which is self-correcting. Big name: Milton Friedman.

Salt water; The economy is a human institution and has only that organisation afforded to it by human activity, including that of governments. Empirical (including statistical) research supplemented with operational definitions and heuristics can allow decisions to be based on probabilities. No set assumptions can be made about human behaviour under all circumstances, rendering mathematical models at best misleading and at worst astrology. Big name: John Maynard Keynes.

The Austrian School; An older institution which bears most resemblance to that of the fresh-water economists, having established many of the assumptions they use, and advocating no government interference. As such Friedman would seem to be sit best with this school. However, concepts and vocabulary established by the Austrian school are used in both camps.

Heinlein Libertarian; Notably good-humoured!

I've finished and enjoyed The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which has given me much food for thought. On first reading I didn't detect a single cop-out; all the hard decisions were made by the revolutionary government (they did, after all, govern; not to say misled, censored and manipulated). An unsympathetic reviewer could make the whole thing sound like a retrospective whitewash- the narrator's being constantly manipulated does sometimes wear thin. How would Inside the Third Reich read as a novel? But without a doubt, great literature. My thanks to those who recommended it.

In respect of AnCap philosophy, is there not an assumption in Escape from Terra that human institutions are self-organising? I'm thinking of the hockey-game discussion. If so, is it necessary that all understand society for it to function (know the rules of the game)? Can such a society accomodate the ignorant? The solution in Mistress is essentially evolutionary- if you don't, you don't last long. But if it were only a question of evolution, there would be no one correct society- only what worked under the circumstances.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: SandySandfort on May 06, 2010, 09:10:56 pm
In respect of AnCap philosophy, is there not an assumption in Escape from Terra that human institutions are self-organising? I'm thinking of the hockey-game discussion. If so, is it necessary that all understand society for it to function (know the rules of the game)? Can such a society accomodate the ignorant? The solution in Mistress is essentially evolutionary- if you don't, you don't last long. But if it were only a question of evolution, there would be no one correct society- only what worked under the circumstances.

It would be inaccurate to speak of an AnCap society as a single society or philosophy. Getting rid of government and other coercive institutions is only the beginning. I once had a libertarian friend who described the White Panthers as "internally Maoist and externally capitalist." Similar "contradictions" might be the norm in an AnCap society. I certainly don't know; nobody else does either.

I am working on a story that features a group on Mars, called Lenin's Hammer. Basically, it is a commune internally set up on a pure communism model. Externally, they deal with other Martians in a free market atmosphere, but as a unit. Lenin's Hammer seems to thrive. Why this is so is a mystery to many. Actually, the answer is simple and has allowed many communist communes to last for many years, in spite of a flawed economic model.

As humanity moves into space, we are going to see a lot of voluntary variations on a theme. Many, if not most, could be embedded within a greater, more or less AnCap, society without violating any AnCap "rules."

Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: quadibloc on May 06, 2010, 10:14:09 pm
Why this is so is a mystery to many. Actually, the answer is simple and has allowed many communist communes to last for many years, in spite of a flawed economic model.
This reminds me of something that took place where I live, here in the province of Alberta.

Because many Alberta farmers feared being undercut by Hutterite communal farms (something like the Amish, but less... picturesque) for many years the province had a law which forbade the purchase of farmland for communal ownership without government permission.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on May 06, 2010, 11:26:48 pm
I am working on a story that features a group on Mars, called Lenin's Hammer. Basically, it is a commune internally set up on a pure communism model. Externally, they deal with other Martians in a free market atmosphere, but as a unit. Lenin's Hammer seems to thrive. Why this is so is a mystery to many. Actually, the answer is simple and has allowed many communist communes to last for many years, in spite of a flawed economic model.

It doesn't surprise me;(real)  Communism works reasonably well in sufficiently small groups.  The key is that the group is small enough that by and large everyone knows everyone else, and has a direct trust relationship with them.  Beyond this, group size is limited by the requirement that every member is truly dedicated to the group and it's purpose (whatever that is).

I have on more than one occasion shocked people in the socialist/communist arena by granting (as an admitted hard-core capitalist)  that communism does indeed work; in fact, they often even actually hear me when I go on to say that the problem is that while it works in small groups, it doesn't scale.  At that point, I point out that those on the "left" don't understand what capitalism really is, and those on the "right" don't understand what communism really is.   At this point they become so confused that they don't even try to use their knee-jerk responses.   :)
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on May 07, 2010, 01:36:13 am
Communism works excellently when you have a proper arms' length relationship with the Decider(s), by which I mean, you can reach out and choke the daylights out of 'em, if need be. Usually, such extreme measures are not required, but in small communities, enough feedback flows up and down that a reasonably competent person can manage resource allocations. This is particularly true when such communities are embedded in a market economy, which simplifies a great deal of the communication and computation.

It's funny how the proponents of government education stridently refuse to examine the evidence, but assume the government schools must have good reason to consume so much time and resources. One may lead a horse to water, but can not make the horse drink. Frankly, you do a great discourtesy to people who have done a good bit of honest research. If this is the fruits of your government-sponsored education, you paid far too much; you lost the effective use of your brainpower.

As for the war in the Middle East, if you believe it is an effort to impose sharia on the West, you are smoking some very strong hashish. It is an effort by the West to impose our values on their society. You may have noticed that our tanks and planes and predator drones and bombs are over there, and not the reverse. Any sane observer would conclude that the US of A is invading the Middle East, and not the reverse. Again, if you fail to notice this, you paid far, far too much for your government-sponsored brainwashing.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: wdg3rd on May 07, 2010, 05:03:25 am

I am working on a story that features a group on Mars, called Lenin's Hammer. Basically, it is a commune internally set up on a pure communism model. Externally, they deal with other Martians in a free market atmosphere, but as a unit. Lenin's Hammer seems to thrive. Why this is so is a mystery to many. Actually, the answer is simple and has allowed many communist communes to last for many years, in spite of a flawed economic model.


Such enclaves are featured in several of Ken MacLeod's novels, starting with his first book, Prometheus-winner The Star Fraction.  Ken himself is essentially an anarchist, but was raised Trotskyite.  I highly recommend his works.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on May 07, 2010, 09:17:55 am
I am working on a story that features a group on Mars, called Lenin's Hammer. Basically, it is a commune internally set up on a pure communism model. Externally, they deal with other Martians in a free market atmosphere, but as a unit. Lenin's Hammer seems to thrive. Why this is so is a mystery to many. Actually, the answer is simple and has allowed many communist communes to last for many years, in spite of a flawed economic model.

Any self selected group, with enough brotherhood can apply a commune, in fact communism is just the extrapolation of comradeship clubs, football teams, but there is an impossibility to scale it because humans have a limited capacity for friendship. But anyway good luck with your story  ;)
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: nottheowl on May 07, 2010, 11:05:59 am

It would be inaccurate to speak of an AnCap society as a single society or philosophy... I am working on a story that features a group on Mars, called Lenin's Hammer. Basically, it is a commune internally set up on a pure communism model...

As humanity moves into space, we are going to see a lot of voluntary variations on a theme. Many, if not most, could be embedded within a greater, more or less AnCap, society without violating any AnCap "rules."


Interesting. Remaining within EFT, if such a subsection of the population (not necessarily communist; religious perhaps, or totalitarian) coerced its members to remain amongst them, but refrained from infringing on the liberty of anyone outside the group, would there be any external agency that would come to their aid?




Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Illuminaughty on May 07, 2010, 11:35:18 am
Quote
Why this is so is a mystery to many. Actually, the answer is simple and has allowed many communist communes to last for many years, in spite of a flawed economic model.

Sandy, I don't understand this sentence. If they are thriving, then they have an economic model that works for their situation. It would be a quite good economic model for them, not a flawed economic model.

Anyway, the only difference between communism and capitalism is property rights. In communism the things you are allowed to personally own are less. Total communist oppression would not even allow you to own your time, forcing you to work on their clock. In capitalism you can personally own a lot more. Total capitalist oppression would forbid you to breath unless you owned the air or were paying someone who did own it.

People studying psychological game theory have noticed that humans (and in fact all communal animals, monkeys, dogs, etc.) look for fairness. We want to interact with each other fairly, using fair exchanges. But we also practice altruism. We will sacrifice some of our own wellbeing for the good of our community, or to punish those who work against communal wellbeing. That's why all real communities fall somewhere in the middle.

On Ceres, people pay their bar tabs, but nobody negotiated for payment before going to rescue Lorna, Guy and Fiorella at Ghetty. Because even in a largely capitalist society, there are some things that people will not make you pay for.

Economic models are only flawed if you think one model of property rights should work for every group of people in every situation.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: SandySandfort on May 07, 2010, 03:46:34 pm
Interesting. Remaining within EFT, if such a subsection of the population (not necessarily communist; religious perhaps, or totalitarian) coerced its members to remain amongst them, but refrained from infringing on the liberty of anyone outside the group, would there be any external agency that would come to their aid?

The answer to your specific question, has to be, "Who knows?" However, my guess is that such totalitarian communities would piss off enough people that they would help the inmates by creating underground railroads, establishing "battered members" shelters or just kicking ass and taking names. Other people would just boycott the totalitarians and refuse to do business with them. Still others would say, "It's no skin off my nose."

When Barbara Brandon was asked, "what about the poor?" she replied, "No one will stop you from helping them."

You sound like someone who would like to see such an "external agency," where such a scenario to arise. No one (outside the totalitarian enclave) would stop you from doing any of the things I listed and more and more. For sure I would help you and I'd bet dollars to donuts a lot of AnCaps would be there too.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: nottheowl on May 07, 2010, 05:29:00 pm
SandySandfort, y'got me. I am that caped and spit-curled crusader.

Illuminaughty (love the name), a model justifies a practice, but it's possible for the model to be flawed while the practice works. The Pedi (South Africa) believed that infection can be magically cured by eating meal chewed by a cross-eyed child and hung for three days in a gourd. They were correct, not because the ritual is magic, but because the grain grows penicillium mold. Flawed model, right practice. (Not sure where I picked that up- one of Lyall Watson's essays?)

You're right about intellectual theories though. The tragedy comes in when the flaw isn't admitted even after the practice has been shown not to work. Centralised economy on the large scale is probably a good example- though it'd be interesting to know what could be accomplished with sufficiently advanced IT.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Illuminaughty on May 07, 2010, 09:33:17 pm
Centralized economy has nothing to do with property rights.

USSR - The people (communist party) own this farm and this store, and we determine what happens to the produce of the farm and what goods the people can have from the store. Someone who tries to differ from the will of the people is to be shot.

Coal Mining Town - I own this mine and this store and I determine how much you get paid for working in the mine and how much the goods cost in the store. Someone who tries to offer my employees goods at cheaper cost, or work at better pay (so they could escape debt bondage) is a trespasser and will be shot.

It's the same game, Capitalist or Communist. We're in agreement that it's evil. If we lived in spaceships and you wanted to help people subject to coercion, I would help you. And it doesn't really matter what can be done with IT. If a centralized economy or a mining town is fabulously successful at providing wealth for the people in that economy, it wouldn't change the fact that the people in it can only live the lives that are chosen for them. They are subjects of oppression.

But if you lived in a land full of hippies and they were all like, "You can't own the land, dude, the land owns you." that's communism and its not oppression (as long as you can leave your hippies and go live with hippies doing the kind of work and living the types of lives you want to live). [By some weird fluke, if you put up a fence and started shooting people for trespassing you would be the one violating the ZAP.]

Yes, I know, the hippy world doesn't really work. People look for fairness. So industrious hippies who find that lazy hippies always take advantage of their generosity will find ways to punish the lazy hippies (stuff like giving them the ugly tie dies or not giving them any more weed or something). Without government coercion a type of market will develop in which lazy hippies who don't do their fair share will end up with less than industrious hippies.

But there are situations in which capitalism doesn't work. Currently we are seeing that intellectual property doesn't work the way people thought it would. For example, you sell me a DVD and tell me I own the DVD but you still own the movie so I definitely musn't copy that DVD, say if I want a copy to leave in the car for my kids to watch and especially in case my car gets broken into then only the copy get's stolen. If my friend is sitting in my car going through my DVDs and she says she likes that movie, I'm just going to give it to her. I can make another copy. You don't have the property rights you thought you had. And copy protection doesn't work because it makes a product less useful, so products without copy protection that are more flexible and useful will attract more customers.

Certain things people can own and certain things people cannot own. There is no culture in which everything is private property and there is no culture in which everything is common property. And what is ownable in any particular culture may not be ownable in the next. If the people of Lenin's Hammer hold a lot to be common property that we think of as private property, but it works for them, then their model isn't flawed.

Certain services you can charge for, and certain services you cannot. There is no culture in which you charge for everything you ever do for anyone else, and there is no culture in which you do everything without fair exchange. And what is common decency in one culture may be a high priced service in another. If the people of Lenin's Hammer think that most of the work they do is common decency and they would not expect payment from their comrades, and it works for them, then their model isn't flawed.

An economic model isn't a scientific fact that is always right or always wrong. It is an invention, an engineering solution to the problem of getting resources to people so they can live the lives they want to live. And different engineering solutions work better in different circumstances. That's all I'm saying.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: nottheowl on May 08, 2010, 02:31:29 am
I agree with all of that, except that a model must also have an element of explanation (David Deutsch argues convincingly for this in Fabric of Reality, though he couches the argument in terms of hypotheses), which could be completely mistaken while allowing the model to work in the intended circumstances. The model itself could be implemented without any degree of coercion- or it least, the model itself need not be responsible for that coercion.

I added the "large scale central economy" only as an example of a flawed model whose deficiencies were not admitted when they began to do harm. But those deficiencies were possibly due to inefficient means of data processing, and was offhand in mentioning this.

Bad tie-dyes? That is harsh. But I'm glad to know you'd take part. Suit up, friend, we're goin' in...!
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Brugle on May 08, 2010, 09:48:29 am
But there are situations in which capitalism doesn't work. Currently we are seeing that intellectual property doesn't work the way people thought it would.
Well, that depends on who you mean by "people" and what you mean by "work".  One school of thought (which, as far as I can tell, is rapidly gaining adherents) would say that IP is working exactly as some people intend, enriching certain politically powerful groups at the expense of the populace as a whole.  Not all people who consider themselves libertarians agree, but I find that school of thought convincing.

By that view, IP is government-enforced monopoly which forbids people from using their actual property (such as paper, ink, computers, or voice boxes) to form certain patterns.  In a free society, it would be legitimate for (for example) a singer to contract with every member of her audience to not reveal a song she sung to anyone else, and to be awarded damages from anyone who violated such a contract.  But such contracts would not affect third parties, such as a man who heard the song while standing outside the concert hall.  Sending thugs to prevent that man from (for example) recording that song and selling the recordings has nothing to do with "capitalism" (as the term has been used here).

Now, if you use "capitalism" to mean something other than an economy free of government meddling, please say so.   But if you use "capitalism" as the word has been used here, please don't blame it for government-caused problems.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on May 08, 2010, 12:57:04 pm
The coal mine scenario is not a free market. In the Real World, where anti-capitalist theorists fear to tread, the "I control everything in this town" types had to rely upon force to prevent competition. I have a distant cousin who wrote a book about his experiences setting up a co-op store in Ireland, many years ago; the gombeen ( land-owners ) sent thugs to try to shut down his business by force. He drove them off and built a thriving business which provided goods more cheaply, and provided better employment for many. He got no love from the local government.

Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: quadibloc on May 08, 2010, 05:44:14 pm
The coal mine scenario is not a free market. In the Real World, where anti-capitalist theorists fear to tread, the "I control everything in this town" types had to rely upon force to prevent competition.
Exploitative businessmen often did use force to prevent competition. However, this was not an invariable rule. Sometimes they just colluded not to compete with one another. (Although such situations may have been accompanied by the use of force to prevent collusion among the workers.) Or they just took advantage of having greater market power than individual workers.

And sometimes workers faced poverty not because of any fault on the part of businessmen, but because of overpopulation - which was mistakenly blamed on the rich due to past experience.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Rocketman on May 09, 2010, 12:02:45 pm

 Other people would just boycott the totalitarians and refuse to do business with them.


 Sandy:  In this one area I'm going to have to disagree with you.  I've said many times in various postings that "I know how these bastards think." and I think I've proven that I do.  If it were just a few small individuals doing it it would be one things but as soon as it becomes an annoyance to those in power you can expect those in power to outlaw any choice by the seller.  If you have something for sale and you find out that the individual is a member of the government you would have no right to refuse to sell to him the object.  If you did you could be arrested and fined or imprisoned for refusing to do so.  That's how they will handle that situation.   >:(  >:(  >:(
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Brugle on May 09, 2010, 02:27:36 pm

 Other people would just boycott the totalitarians and refuse to do business with them.


 Sandy:  In this one area I'm going to have to disagree with you.  I've said many times in various postings that "I know how these bastards think." and I think I've proven that I do.  If it were just a few small individuals doing it it would be one things but as soon as it becomes an annoyance to those in power you can expect those in power to outlaw any choice by the seller.  If you have something for sale and you find out that the individual is a member of the government you would have no right to refuse to sell to him the object.  If you did you could be arrested and fined or imprisoned for refusing to do so.  That's how they will handle that situation.   >:(  >:(  >:(

Sandy appeared to be talking about not trading with totalitarians who emerged from their enclave into a wider AnCap society.  If government thugs tried to enforce their edicts outside of their enclave, I expect that they would be handled just like any other criminals.  (I don't know what defensive organizations would exist, but you can be sure that people near a governmental area would be concerned.)

If you were go into the totalitarian enclave and refuse to trade with government officials there, then you might be fined or imprisoned or worse.  If so, your friends (and other sympathetic people) might try to help you, or they might decide that anyone so foolish deserves what he gets.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on May 10, 2010, 01:28:32 am
The example of the Coop, which I mentioned, was not a theoretical concept, not a thought experiment, not a work of fiction.

It was a description of how poor, downtrodden people in the real world managed to get out from under the thumb of colluding merchants. My distant cousin didn't just do the trick once; he helped establish a network of similar voluntary coops in many of the poorest parts of Ireland. Put that in your "capitalists always exploit the poor and nothing can be done" pipe and smoke it. The poor people of today are wealthy by comparison to those in Ireland in those days, and therefore have much greater resources to work with.

If I had a dime for everyone who told me that something couldn't be done, I'd be a rich man. For every half-assed theory about why the poor can't do squat, why they need some benevolent government intervention, there is a poor entrepreneur who is being put down by the government - and who will strive to find a way out from under their thumbs., given just a bit of daylight to work with.

Government is not the solution; it is the problem. Take a gander at the extensive research by Jane jacobs and others; government attempts which allegedly "help the poor" by confiscating "blighted" property and remaking it in the image of the Central Planners have about the same efficacy as a bombing run. I can speak at great length about the manner in which Pittsburgh politicians destroyed one neighborhood after another. Their targets were "the poor"; the only real beneficiaries were wealthy politicians and developers. Pittsburgh is no more corrupt than other cities, as near as I can tell. Google up "regulatory capture" -- there's an extensive literature showing how government coercion is used to lock out competitors. Check the web site of the Institute of Justice; they have numerous case studies for your review. The IJ's mission is to stop governments from using coercion to prevent poor entrepreneurs from succeeding at things like driving taxi cabs, opening beauty salons, and so forth.

The "company town" cannot prevent competition without using force, either legal or not. Poor people are not as stupid as you may think. If the government gets out of their fricking way, poor people will develop better alternatives to exploitative "company towns."  It has already been done many times over; if you persist in claiming that it cannot be done, your reality check bounced.

 
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: quadibloc on May 13, 2010, 09:48:12 am
If I had a dime for everyone who told me that something couldn't be done, I'd be a rich man. For every half-assed theory about why the poor can't do squat, why they need some benevolent government intervention, there is a poor entrepreneur who is being put down by the government - and who will strive to find a way out from under their thumbs., given just a bit of daylight to work with.

Government is not the solution; it is the problem.
Government can certainly be a problem.

But the problem with this line of argument is that it conflates "it is not certain that all poor people can escape from poverty through their own unaided efforts" with "it is not possible for any poor person to escape from poverty through his own unaided efforts". The second statement is indeed patently false. However, people who advocate big government welfare programs, however misguidedly, are usually only asserting the first.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Rocketman on May 13, 2010, 11:06:14 am
Brugle:  The problem with that is the government will look at the idea of a large group of people fighting their edicts as a challenge.  If they have 100 people against them they will send 700 agents to deal with them.  If the protestors have guns the agents will have TANKS.  It's not going to mean anything to them if they are in a "free zone" or not.  No law by them will ever differentiate between "free" or "not free" because to them everything that they control is considered subject to their whims and is therefore "not free".  Want an example?   >:(
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: sams on May 13, 2010, 11:56:35 am
Brugle:  The problem with that is the government will look at the idea of a large group of people fighting their edicts as a challenge.  If they have 100 people against them they will send 700 agents to deal with them.  If the protestors have guns the agents will have TANKS.  It's not going to mean anything to them if they are in a "free zone" or not.  No law by them will ever differentiate between "free" or "not free" because to them everything that they control is considered subject to their whims and is therefore "not free".  Want an example?   >:(

If it is succesful and involve people  ... it surely need to be regulated  ;D

We are now in world were stuff are not legal unless they are explicitly authorized ... instead of not being illegal until explicitly banned
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Brugle on May 13, 2010, 12:01:10 pm
Brugle:  The problem with that is the government will look at the idea of a large group of people fighting their edicts as a challenge.  If they have 100 people against them they will send 700 agents to deal with them.  If the protestors have guns the agents will have TANKS.  It's not going to mean anything to them if they are in a "free zone" or not.  No law by them will ever differentiate between "free" or "not free" because to them everything that they control is considered subject to their whims and is therefore "not free".  Want an example?   >:(

Again you ignore context.  The discussion that the rest of us are having was started by SandySandfort describing (in reply #191) Lenin's Hammer as a relatively small commune embedded in a much larger AnCap society.  nottheowl asked (in reply #197) what the larger society would do if such a group was totalitarian in that it forbid its members from leaving.  SandySandfort answered (in reply #199) that there would be a variety of responses, and that some people would just ignore the totalitarians.  You (Rocketman) disputed that (in reply #206), saying that the government wouldn't allow people to ignore them.  I (Brugle) pointed out (in reply #207) that you ignored the context, since a small group would not have the power to enforce its will against the much larger surrounding society.

Let me give you an example.  Let's say there's an essentially-free North American Confederacy, but that the adults of Cambridge, MA unanimously decide to form a totalitarian society.  I doubt that anyone would stop them (although I expect that the rates for certain kinds of insurance would increase in nearby areas).  Then, say that those thousands of people decided to procure some tanks and conquer the half-billion people in North America (or maybe just the million people in the Boston area).  There are so many ways that their plans for conquest could be defeated that it wouldn't even make an interesting story.  However, their peaceful interaction with the surrounding communities could make an interesting story (and I hope to read Sandy's take on that some day).
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: SandySandfort on May 13, 2010, 12:36:25 pm
...Lenin's Hammer as a relatively small commune embedded in a much larger AnCap society...
... their peaceful interaction with the surrounding communities could make an interesting story (and I hope to read Sandy's take on that some day).

I'm working on it. To make things more interesting, Martian society would not mess with the commune, because it is completely voluntary. Members may leave at any time and no one will stop them. Yet, the commune has existed from the very first days of the settlement of Mars and has flourished. How could that possibly be? We must be missing something here. Unfortunately, you will just have to wait to find out what, until it appears in EFT.   ;D
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on May 13, 2010, 01:23:03 pm
People who push for government programs conflate guidance with coercion. Voluntary guidance and assistance are laudable; pointing a gun at strangers to force them to fund programs which allegedly guide and assist is not.

Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: jamesd on May 20, 2010, 01:03:14 am
In a war between anarcho capitalist society and state, anarcho capitalism is going to developed some marked resemblances to anarcho piratism.  Yes, in a war situation property rights, and indeed all rights, are apt to get abruptly trampled, and trampled almost as much by those defending rights as those attempting to crush rights.  Against smaller threats, like a criminal gang, probably not so much.

And what is anarcho piratism?

It is what conquered the West Indies, and indeed much of Britains colonial empire, for the British.

It is often said that the Britain acquired the empire in a fit of absent mindedness.  What happened was that the British government failed to pay much attention to acts of piracy and brigandage by Britons far away, and then eventually after the pirates and brigands had stolen an empire, the British government moved in on them to take it off their hands.

Similarly, Charles the great would license brigands to rob Muslims, and this was the origin of the multitude of little Christian kingdoms that slowly reconquered Spain.

Oh ! England is a pleasant place for them that's rich and high,
But England is a cruel place for such poor folks as I ;
And such a port for mariners I'll never see again
As the pleasant Isle of Aves beside the Spanish main.

There were forty craft in Aves that were both swift and stout,
All furnished well with small arms and cannon all about ;
And a thousand men in Aves made laws so fair and free
To choose their valiant captains and obey them loyally.

Then we sailed against the Spaniard with his hoards of plate and gold,
Which he wrung with cruel tortures from Indian folks of old ;
Likewise the merchant captains, with hearts as hard as stone,
Who flog men and keelhaul them and starve them to the bone.

Oh ! palms grew high in Aves, and fruits that shone like gold,
And the colibris and parrots they were gorgeous to behold,
And the negro maids to Aves from bondage fast did flee
To welcome gallant sailors a sweeping in from sea.

Oh ! sweet it was in Aves to hear the landward breeze
A swing with good tobacco in a net between the trees,
With a negro lass to fan you while you listened to the roar
Of the breakers on the reef outside which never touched the shore.

But Scripture saith an ending to all fine things must be,
So the king's ships sailed on Aves and quite put down were we.
All day we fought like bull dogs, but they burnt the booms at night,
And I fled in a piragua sore wounded from the fight.

Nine days I floated starving, and a negro lass beside,
Till for all I tried to cheer her the poor young thing she died.
But as I lay a gasping a Bristol sail came by,
And brought me home to England here to beg until I die.

And now I'm old and going : I'm sure I can't tell where.
One comfort is, this world's so hard I can't be worse off there.
If I might but be a sea dove, I'd fly across the main
To the pleasant Isle of Aves to look at it once again.

Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: SandySandfort on May 20, 2010, 08:50:50 am
In a war between anarcho capitalist society and state, anarcho capitalism is going to developed some marked resemblances to anarcho piratism.  Yes, in a war situation property rights, and indeed all rights, are apt to get abruptly trampled, and trampled almost as much by those defending rights as those attempting to crush rights.  Against smaller threats, like a criminal gang, probably not so much.

Your examples do not seem to support your thesis. In your examples, the pirates came first and then the state* action. Interesting, but hardly relevant to an stateless society. In a mature stateless society, pirates, tax collectors and other criminals would be dealt with swiftly and effectively. There will always be criminals, but their numbers can be kept at an absolute minimum by organized private action.

* Actually, I think a compelling argument can made that pirates represent a type of state. I.e., an organized gang that initiates force and victimizes others.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: Brugle on May 20, 2010, 09:17:53 am
Whether you view piracy as pre-state, post-freedom, or something else, you may enjoy the recent book The Invisible Hook (about pirate organization) by Peter T. Leeson (an economist).
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: wdg3rd on May 20, 2010, 10:42:18 am

* Actually, I think a compelling argument can made that pirates represent a type of state. I.e., an organized gang that initiates force and victimizes others.


I forget who thought of it first, but El Neil has quoted several times that roving bandits (who decide to stop roving) are the very origin of government.  Started just after agriculture, when the bandits realized that they didn't have to run after farmers who couldn't run away.  They cut a deal -- "Give us half of all you produce (and any of your daughters and wives we want) this year and every year after, and we won't just kill you and take everything and have to try the same scam with the next bunch of rubes".
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: jamesd on May 20, 2010, 04:00:04 pm

Your examples do not seem to support your thesis. In your examples, the pirates came first and then the state* action. Interesting, but hardly relevant to an stateless society. In a mature stateless society, pirates, tax collectors and other criminals would be dealt with swiftly and effectively. There will always be criminals, but their numbers can be kept at an absolute minimum by organized private action.

In a mature anarcho capitalist society with no major enemies, that is not in a state of war or near war with major states or statelike enemies, doubtless.

When the British were conquering what became the British empire, they were at war with states - Spain and various sultans and rajas.  They set up systems that, though far from anarcho capitalist, were very free for insiders, and sometimes not too bad for outsiders.  These systems subsequently became centralized and authoritarian due to the British government taking over from British pirates and brigands.

Certainly British pirates and brigands were a government to those on the outside, and sometimes a brutally oppressive one, but internally they employed quite decentralized force, without running into much of the problems that decentralized force is supposed to lead to.

This differs in degree but not in kind to the Icelandic free state, which was also internally peaceful and anarchic but externally piratical - with the important difference that Icelandic relations were mainly internal and peaceful, while the relationships of the pirates that prefigured the British empire were mainly external and piratical.

Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: KBCraig on May 24, 2010, 01:26:03 am

* Actually, I think a compelling argument can made that pirates represent a type of state. I.e., an organized gang that initiates force and victimizes others.


I forget who thought of it first, but El Neil has quoted several times that roving bandits (who decide to stop roving) are the very origin of government.  Started just after agriculture, when the bandits realized that they didn't have to run after farmers who couldn't run away.  They cut a deal -- "Give us half of all you produce (and any of your daughters and wives we want) this year and every year after, and we won't just kill you and take everything and have to try the same scam with the next bunch of rubes".


I thought that was an obvious thing: government is merely choosing to give one group of bandits a monopoly advantage over competitors.

The opposite way of expressing that idea: when a group of armed men approach you with an "offer you can't refuse", it really doesn't matter whether it's the Mafia or the government. Except with the Mafia, you might have options, including countering them with greater force, or removing the leadership without waiting for November and your neighbors' support. With the government, you really have no options except acts that are ultimately suicidal.
Title: Re: Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals
Post by: terry_freeman on May 24, 2010, 01:28:04 am
With the mafia, you can fight back, and people will cheer you for it. With a self-annointed "government", you'll be condemned as an "enemy of the people" if you fight back.