"Voluntaryism must be global"

[The Babypuke]

So I was talking with a military guy who hit me with the argument (after I expressed my reasoning for being a voluntaryist, and explained what that meant), that the only way anarchism would 'work' is if it happened globally all at once.

 

What he meant as he explained was that if lets say just the US became a voluntaryist society and dissolved it's centralized organization and military, that China or some other still statist world power would come over and invade because we would have all these unguarded resources. I argued that they wouldn't because it wouldn't be worth the money to try and invade us with no infrastructure to take over and that people here would probably be armed and that security agencies would exist but he said they could never be as organized as a government and I don't really have enough specific knowledge about military organization to argue against that. He also said they wouldn't care about whether or not we had infrastructure to take over, just that we had unguarded resources which were enough to "merit" the tradeoff. Merit was a word he used a lot when I tried to ask him to explain why current day countries without standing militias don't just get invaded and robbed, he said those things don't happen to smaller countries because they don't have the resources to "merit" an invasion. I then argued well couldn't these world powers just send a smaller less expensive invasion force then and save money that way? To which he replied yes but then the world would be cued to their willingness to invade undefended countries and he made the whole allied countries would come to their defense argument. Again I really don't have a lot of knowledge regarding military takeover tactics and stuff like that so I couldn't say much against it.

 

Is the argument I should be making basically "that's a risk I'm willing to take"? I did say that in a free society we should theoretically be experiencing far more rapid technological growth that would allow us to compete with big governments but that wasn't really good enough for him. Was I just arguing with an idiot or is it feasible to assume that world powers would seriously try and possibly succeed in harassing us on a large scale without "organized" military might as opposed to segmented security forces?

 

Eventually I had to go so I gave a cheesy answer and just said "well let's make it a global movement and dismantle all governments once everyone understands then" haha, the more voluntaryism the better.

[cynicist]

There's no need to get into military tactics or anything like that when you have a good logical flaw to work with at the very beginning. Let's try his argument in the context of slavery:

 

So I was talking with this plantation owner who hit me with the argument that the only way freeing slaves would 'work' is if it happened globally all at once. What he meant, as he explained, was that if lets say just the US let all their slaves go then everyone would starve because there would be no one to pick our crops. I argued that it wouldn't happen because other solutions would arise that would make slaves unnecessary but he said they could never be as efficient as slaves and I don't really have enough specific knowledge about how a plantation is run to argue against that.

 

I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea. The truth is that neither he nor you (nor I) know what kind of solutions might come up in a free society but we know one thing for certain, that the current situation is immoral. If this guy thinks he is smarter than the collective minds of every entrepreneur in America then I'd say he is delusional, so just because he can't see a way to do it doesn't mean that no solution is possible.

 

(As a sidenote, if voluntarism does gain ground in some area it's going to be one that is already highly developed industrially and will only become richer the more free it is. Do you think some country in Africa is going to manage an invasion of the United States anytime soon? Well why would it be any different for a highly industrious free society compared to any debt-based tax farm? Personally, I think that by the time these ideas become mainstream and accepted people will just outgrow the state and these conflicts entirely but explaining that to this person would be very difficult)

[thelizardking52]

I'd also say the argument he makes that the undefendable countries would be defended by allies is actually making the point for you. So they'd help out a smaller nation but not an enormous geographic area of people that has no standing army to defend itself?  

 

Still, pointing out facts or logic flaws isn't gonna convince him, especially if he feels he's superior in knowledge on the topic than you, his ego probably won't let him give in on to that. It's better to just point out the ethics of the whole thing and mention that we are already under imprisonment just not from a foreign invader but rather from our own communities within. 

[J. D. Stembal]

You get this argument with any libertarian or minarchist who works for the military. It is grounded in the theory that humans are inherently violent and warlike, which they aren't. The flawed thinking states that soon as we turn our heads away from foreign policy or politics in other regions, another country will jab the butt of a gun into our collective backs and make us their slaves. Well, guess what, we are already slave to a government - the United States of America! The contention that anarchism or voluntarism will never work are motivated by the fear of the advocates of Statism losing their own "merit" and "resources" through the adoption of a stateless society.

[The Babypuke]

Thanks, helps some. I did mention the fact that neither he nor I could really know what kinds of solutions would arise, and did point out that humans are only naturally violent if you raise them to be that way, the peaceful parenting stuff is really hard to get people my age to understand. It works when I'm expressing the concerns to older parents a bit better.

I'd also say the argument he makes that the undefendable countries would be defended by allies is actually making the point for you. So they'd help out a smaller nation but not an enormous geographic area of people that has no standing army to defend itself? 

 

Well I didn't think I could use that argument because we were speaking in terms of "if the government had dissolved" at that point I would only expect private organizations to be trading with other countries, since there would be no further inter-gov't relations without a government here. I guess if we reported that we were being attacked that maybe some foreign government might try to help, but it wouldn't be because we were "allies" so to speak. Maybe they would do it to protect us as a trade partner and therefore protecting a great source of imports for themselves or something though, hadn't thought of that before.

[WorBlux]

Think about why France supported the American revolution.

 

Do you think Russia would idly stand by while China amass massive strategic resources or vice versa?

 

This isn't even to mention the realities of asymmetric warfare, or the tactics of systematic assassination, or nuclear deterrence.

[LanceD]

Ask him how well both the Russian and American occupations of Afghanistan went.

 

While Afghanistan is far from a Voluntaryist paradise it is an area full of people who absolutely refuse to be governed.

 

This has led to both recent attempts at occupying the county to lead the aggressor nation into financial ruin.

 

Militaries are only good at blowing things up and killing people. They are not good at managing populations.

 

So while being invaded would surely suck the simple fact is, without an already installed government infrastructure to take over and as long as the anarchists continued to refuse to be governed the occupation would not go well for the occupier.

[Bortasz]

The example with Slaves is miss. And soldier have some right. 

 

Maybe it is because I'm from Poland and all World Wars where happening in Poland, Maybe it because one of my country neighbors(Ukraine) is under attack from Russia. But I want limited Government. And I want strong Polish Army. That can defend my country. 

 

And I don't believe that any Allies will come to help Poland. I know how much they help us in 1939. 

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

 

Taking this to consideration there is no chance that you will convince people of Poland that we should disband our military. 

 

If you want change this you must take approach of babe steps. Limit the government in you country. Spread Ideas of freedom. And of course. Give a gun to everybody. There is no better equalizer. 

 If god didn't make men equal, Samuel Colt did. 

 Just my opinion. 

[cynicist]

The example with Slaves is miss. And soldier have some right. 

 

Maybe it is because I'm from Poland and all World Wars where happening in Poland, Maybe it because one of my country neighbors(Ukraine) is under attack from Russia. But I want limited Government. And I want strong Polish Army. That can defend my country. 

 

If you want change this you must take approach of babe steps. Limit the government in you country. Spread Ideas of freedom. And of course. Give a gun to everybody. There is no better equalizer. 

Just my opinion. 

 

My family is Polish. I'm the first generation to be born in America. If there's something wrong with my example please show me what it is. We agree as far as guns go at least.

[Bortasz]

My family is Polish. I'm the first generation to be born in America. If there's something wrong with my example please show me what it is. We agree as far as guns go at least.

 

You live in America. Country that spend more money on military than next 25 countries combine.The biggest invasion that you see for more than century was Mexican looking to work for you.

USA have the most well arm people in the world. Only the Switzerland can be compare.

USA has all resources that it will ever needed.It is easy to speaking about Ideas when you are in safe place.If Poland will go to Voluntarism, Russia or Germany will try enslave us. Either by Military, Politic or Economy. Germans already have majority of mainstrem media. Russia can stop deliver gas.

First you must educate people, give them means to defend themselves.

[J. D. Stembal]

Bortasz,

 

If every person can own a gun, why is a centrally organized military needed in Poland (or anywhere else)? Couldn't independent militias be contracted for organized defense, if required?

[Bedouin]

You get this argument with any libertarian or minarchist who works for the military. It is grounded in the theory that humans are inherently violent and warlike, which they aren't. The flawed thinking states that soon as we turn our heads away from foreign policy or politics in other regions, another country will jab the butt of a gun into our collective backs and make us their slaves. Well, guess what, we are already slave to a government - the United States of America! The contention that anarchism or voluntarism will never work are motivated by the fear of the advocates of Statism losing their own "merit" and "resources" through the adoption of a stateless society.

Yep, that's very true.

 

Furthermore, there is the analogy of the wilderness vs. the farm which is mentioned in Stef's "Practical Anarchy"... Where there is already a centralised infrastructure and clear bounds and structures, it will be easier for people to invade and 'commandeer' the farm and its production. Whereas, it is not nearly as easy to invade the wilderness next to it... Non-centralised, self-organising, non-tame animals many of which have a bite of their own. Potentially difficult to navigate and certainly little prospect of converting it into a workable statist command and control economy, next to the easier option of just invading another statist country.

 

Besides a defence DRO, which would no doubt be present in the circumstances where an anarchist 'country' and hopefully be able to stand its own against a statist invader, people would also have a load of unregistered guns. These could range from small arms to fighter jets and tanks. I can definitely imagine there being a few self-organising communities of militaria enthusiasts who would buy expensive hardware just for the kicks and familiarise themselves with it and be able to use it in case of invasion.)

 

A stateless region's residents could also fund a small, low-cost, efficient nuclear deterrent. Stef has mentioned this in a few podcasts and, while I do not think that he is right that a few dozen nukes would cut it (anti-ballistic missile systems are becoming surprisingly numerous) there may be other contemporary solutions available by the time such a society comes around.

 

Individuals in a stateless society would also no doubt be more likely to not only seek non-violent resolution to such potential conflicts, but they'd also be much more able to organise this themselves. Be it broking deals with 'hostile' leaders or military personnel or civilians, hacking into government hardware and screwing it up or any other number of non-violent settlements, anarchist individuals and groups would probably be able to figure out a workaround.

 

As a military enthusiast myself, somewhat of a moderate one at that anyway, I could already think of potential defences... I have no doubt that experts in the future could come up with solutions.

 

I'm wondering, since Stef's more recent exploration of immigration, whether that could be more of a threat than military invasion anyway.

[cobra2411]

Bortasz,

 

If every person can own a gun, why is a centrally organized military needed in Poland (or anywhere else)? Couldn't independent militias be contracted for organized defense, if required?

There's an old tale about German and Swiss ambassadors meeting during WWII. The German ambassador was trying to gain some knowledge about the Swiss's preparedness for invasion and asked how many troops they had in their army. The Swiss ambassador responded that they had 1 million adult citizens that were armed and trained and would respond as needed to an invasion. The German ambassador then asked what they would do if Germany invaded with 5 million troops? Everyone would shoot five times and go home... Germany never invaded Switzerland... 

 

In becoming an anarchic society we wouldn't just melt down all arms, in fact we'd probably be better armed. What we would do is stop trying to attack other countries. The concept of a militia army worked very well almost 250 years ago, I'm sure it would work well today. Even the founding fathers didn't want  a standing army. That part of the constitution has been tortured pretty well. That's why funding is only for 2 years, then, if not needed the army was intended to be disbanded. Only the navy, which resides at sea, would be allowed to stand. 

 

I guess it depends on where anarchy took hold, but I'm sure the other tax farmers would love to crush it and thus would use their propaganda machines and war machines against it. I wouldn't expect a walk in the park, but we'd be far from defenseless against it. 

[Bortasz]

Bortasz,

 

If every person can own a gun, why is a centrally organized military needed in Poland (or anywhere else)? Couldn't independent militias be contracted for organized defense, if required?

Cobra answer you quite well. But I give you some extra Info.

Currently the Poland have the 1,3 ratio of guns per 100 citizens.In 1 000 crowd only 13 persons have guns.

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

We are betwen Germany and Russia, and have borders with Ukraine. Recently on one of our villagers bullet where fired from the Ukraine border.

http://media2.mic.com/33c74cd9272b76e24928de7cb85361e6.png

That small green part near Lithuaine and Poland is Kalingrad and it's belong to Russia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad

And majority of Polish people are scared of Guns.

The Police man can refuse giving you permission for a gun because he say so. The entire process is hard and heavy regulated.

People are against liberalisation of that laws. They don't have culture like USA where people see gun as a tool of Freedom and Liberation.They must be first convince that giving majority of people guns will not result in massacre. Than they must be educated/train of using guns. Lastly they must be eguip with them. This will take years. Not tens of years. But time is required. Until this, the organized military is all that stand between Poland, and Russia or Germany.For does who wonder: Between Poland and Germany there is no actual peace Treaty. From 1945 Poland and Germany are on Cease fire. The closest thing we have is German-Polish Border treaty from 1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Border_Treaty_%281990%29

Lastly the NATO with is Paper Tiger. I personally and many people from Poland (Politicians, Generals) agree that NATO will not protect us. If I remember correctly they can send one box on ammunition and letter of support and by all legal means be done. They met all treaty obligation.

 

So sorry but I will not support anything other than slow planed reforms. Jumping from current state to anything that resemble ideal(of this community) state is simple to risky.

 

But this is just my opinion.