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."


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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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. 

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

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.


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.



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.