Conquering anarchist "countries"

[Eddie Brock]

I had a debate with a friend the other day.

 

 

 

He said that an anarchist society would not last very long without being conquered by some government.

 

I used Stefan's arguments: that governments have no incentive to conquer a society that has no tax structure, etc.

 

He basically said: "There's been a number of anarchist societies. If what you said is true, then how come not a single one of them could resist being taken over by governments? there aren't any anarchist societies left."

 

 

 

What would be a good answer to this?

[TheRobin]

Well, is it true? What examples did he give?

But basically, the argument is that, people usually don't want to be invaded and oppressed, so there's every incentive to pay some money to have some defensive tools. One that states don't use, but is very effective (also cost-effective) is the threat of assassination of whoever leader declares war against that anarchist society. Not like you can escape a good sniper or an engineered virus or somethign like that.

So you can organize a good defense for a lot less than it would cost to invade, so it's not really a problem

[powder]

what he said is probably true and he makes a good point.  Off the top of my head I would say that when 'countries' were invaded by the empires (british, spanish, french, ottoman) back in the day, they would slaughter many and take the rest for slaves.  not much of an economic system left for slave trading on any reasonable scale these days.  

 

also, I think that anarchist societies would be better able to defend themselves unlike in the old days when the empires were much more technologically advanced than the the 'pagan' societies.  Afghanistan is a good example, they have been trying to take over that country for decades and a random bunch of wingnuts with guns has done a pretty good job of wearing down the military machines of the super powers.  I think of a country trying to invade and take over the USA with some cowboy with a rifle behind every bush, good luck with that.  people can organize and defend themselves pretty good without a government.  In fact, without a government to take control of I think a place like North America would be near impossible to subjugate.  

 

In the end I think your friend is thinking backwards.  Contrary to what people think about the need for a state to protect against outside invaders, being oppressed and assimilated by another society is much easier if you have a state.  today, if you want to take over a country like Lybia for example, you invade and then replace the government - quick and easy.  

[shirgall]

Because of the prevalence of weapons of incredible destructive power and cost amongst states, your friend is probably right. The only way to dismantle such things is a global transformation of the people to be skeptical of such devices (and the other trappings of the state) and dismantle it all. One can always hope. 

[Wuzzums]

A very important rule in a debate is to never assume the other person knows what he's talking about.

 

He said: "There's been a number of anarchist societies. If what you said is true, then how come not a single one of them could resist being taken over by governments? there aren't any anarchist societies left."

 

This is not an argument by any stretch of imagination. He has to give an example of an anarchist society or his whole argument is void.

The Wright brothers: "We're gonna build a machine that can fly!"

Your friend: "It's impossible. There's been a number of machines in the past. If what you said is true, then how come not a single one of them could fly?" 

[dsayers]

I had a debate with a friend the other day.

 

What was it about? Was it about whether aggression is immoral or not? Was it about whether behaviors done in the name of government are aggressive or not? I can't picture a worthwhile debate where "governments will aggress against people" would contribute, let alone make their case for them. Also, government is a concept and not capable of behavior. PEOPLE can aggress against other people. This is why it's important to help others understand that the initiation of the use of force is immoral.

 

It sounds as if your friend considers governments as necessary and unavoidable, so why would he waste any of his mental energy considering whether it's necessary or harmful? If this is true, then for you to debate with him is only going to strengthen this belief when he sets something up that you can't knock down. If you haven't already, please check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. You can't change people's minds until you understand WHY they think the way that they do.

[MagnumPI]

   Every society is anarchist.  They will all benefit from non-coercive interaction. It doesn't matter if they know it or not. I mean, you could replace the government with defense agencies, and road building companies, whatever else and most people wouldn't even know. They can barely tie their shoes or make a grilled cheese sandwich.
   As far as being conquered, what does that even mean in modern life? If government X wants to conquer country Y, what does that look like? Either they replace the state in power or it doesn't happen. Say there's no government and the hordes move into some property in Texas, and attempt to occupy. OK, so now you've got some acreage, and the attention of 10 million good ol' boys. And the resulting gain is...? What, would North Korea move in and demand they be allowed to raise cattle or else? The oil, perhaps? Yeah, good luck trying to muscle them out of their land.
   Look at tribal societies living in the forest, on an island or even aborigines. They still exist, right? So, to think that just because a group of people are living someplace that they will necessarily be conquered and enslaved is false. And if it is indeed the people that some conqueror wishes to take over and tax or coerce into producing gadgets for them, then why would they not just kidnap who they need and keep them in a dungeon safely within their own borders?
   The problem is that people still view anarchy as a society or structure. That's not how it works. It's not this magical boundary on the map is now free of government, come at us. It took the state decades to get where it is, spreading tentacles and killing people in thousands of different ways. They didn't just show up, kill the men, take the women and enslave the children. Maybe hundreds of years ago, but it's not viable now.

In short, define conquer. And if it is what has already happened in the past, then it would require convincing, not violence. And if we're are right(we are) that an "anarchist society" would produce the most prosperity then it would be pretty hard to talk people out of it and to institute sociopaths to run everything. Look what happened with Cliven Bundy. Now multiply that by like 1000 and you get an idea of the trend towards people escaping the reach of the state. The US government backed down on it's own land, how well do you think a foreign entity would fare? And then imagine that the people they're coming for already distrust the state 100%.

[NotDarkYet]

1)  We now have Mutually Assured Destruction.  Not possible in the past.

 

Nuclear powers don't get invaded.

 

2) Giving the state the right to take your income (to prevent a possible invasion) is like actively giving yourself cancer because you might get cancer later.

 

3) A free society has the best chance of long-term survival.   They will allocate resources (like defense) in the most efficient manner.

 

4)  We've had anarchist-style tribal structures in history (Ireland, Iceland), but they were very small, and can't be compared to the technologically advanced, nuclear weapons having, philosophically enlightened anarchist society Stef was talking about.

[luxfelix]

The following are not examples of anarchist societies, though maybe the comparisons can help:

 

Singapore, Lichtenstein, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Monaco, and other such places are not only much better off financially due to freer markets, but they are also economically entwined with so many people from other countries (and specifically people with influence on government bodies...) that any invasion plans will ignite a coalition of defenders amongst the other states.

 

Swiss neutrality, and its creditor status, provides an economic shield equivalent to the protection of the old Papal States in the way that it once used religion, and its continental web of influence, to resist invaders more effectively than direct force of arms (until the threat of excommunication could no longer sway protestants etc.).

 

I imagine an anarchist society would have physical defenses, but would be defended far more effectively by a similar creditor status and economic ties. In addition, I imagine that, even if there is a geographic region on a map one can point to, such a society would make Swiss cheese of the modern political map with communities all around the world (not restricting itself to one place). At that point, there will be no singular country for a state to invade and conquer anarchic society; and any such attack would ultimately become economic suicide (leaders proposing the scheme would be ostracized etc.).

 

Similar to lost-wax casting, the society can grow within the current structures (through peaceful parenting etc.) until the state is obsolete. (Maybe there would still be a few states in the way that there are still monarchies today, but eventually they will either become legacy institutions with no real power or be dissolved entirely, as a nightmare upon waking?)

[Pepin]

It is important to define what you mean by anarchist society. What we tend to mean is a society which fully acknowledges the NAP. Statelessness is an effect on the societies implementation of the NAP. What others mean is simply a society without a government. The obvious issue is that a society without a government doesn't entail the NAP at all.

 

Granted there weren't any voluntarist societies like this in the past, the question becomes a bit mute. But to play with it anyway, one answer is if a society were to play by the NAP, then capitalism would have flung the society hundreds of years ahead of all other societies. Another answer is to accept that it may not have been possible in the past due to a numerous amount of reasons, but that it is now possible because of light speed communication and WMDs.

[Eddie Brock]

Thank you all for the replies

 

 

Well, is it true? What examples did he give? (...)

 

He gave a few, like Spain and others

 

 

(...)
So you can organize a good defense for a lot less than it would cost to invade, so it's not really a problem

 

 

His answer would probably be something like this: "you already said that, and I told you that if that's true, then how come no anarchist society exists anymore."

 

 

 

 

 

 

(...) also, I think that anarchist societies would be better able to defend themselves unlike in the old days when the empires were much more technologically advanced than the the 'pagan' societies.  Afghanistan is a good example, they have been trying to take over that country for decades and a random bunch of wingnuts with guns has done a pretty good job of wearing down the military machines of the super powers. (...)

 

I don't know if this is true though. If the US govt, for example, actually tried seriously to take control of that country or simply destroy the whole country, it could do it very easily in my opinion. I think that just a few nukes would do it 

 

 

 

 

Because of the prevalence of weapons of incredible destructive power and cost amongst states, your friend is probably right. The only way to dismantle such things is a global transformation of the people to be skeptical of such devices (and the other trappings of the state) and dismantle it all. One can always hope. 

 

I think this makes a lot of sense; unfortunately, I can't really say this in a debate because it would work against me, haha

 

 

 

 

What was it about?

 

Anarchism VS Minarchism

 

 

 

Was it about whether aggression is immoral or not?

 

No, he already accepts the validity of the NAP; he's an Objectivist and he thinks that government should be funded by people donating money voluntarily to the Govt. There would be no forced taxation in his ideal country.

 

 

 

 

In short, define conquer. (...)

By "conquering an anarchist society" I mean going from an anarchist society to a society that has a government in place (that is, an institution that has a monopoly over the use of force over the geographical area that contained that anarchist society).

 

(...)

And if we're are right(we are) that an "anarchist society" would produce the most prosperity then it would be pretty hard to talk people out of it and to institute sociopaths to run everything. (...)

 

Again his answer would basically be: "you already said that, and I told you that if that's true, then how come no anarchist society exists anymore."

 

 

 

1)  We now have Mutually Assured Destruction.  Not possible in the past.

 

This is true. I'm not sure it's good or bad when it comes to defending anarchist societies though

 

 

Nuclear powers don't get invaded.

 

2) Giving the state the right to take your income (to prevent a possible invasion) is like actively giving yourself cancer because you might get cancer later.

 

This is true, but he's arguing for a country where people donate voluntarily to the Govt, the Objectivist position

 

 

3) A free society has the best chance of long-term survival.   They will allocate resources (like defense) in the most efficient manner.

I don't know how to prove this.

 

4)  We've had anarchist-style tribal structures in history (Ireland, Iceland), but they were very small, and can't be compared to the technologically advanced, nuclear weapons having, philosophically enlightened anarchist society Stef was talking about.

 

This is true. But again, I don't know if this fact plays in my favor or not

 

 

 

Singapore, Lichtenstein, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Monaco, and other such places are not only much better off financially due to freer markets, but they are also economically entwined with so many people from other countries (and specifically people with influence on government bodies...) that any invasion plans will ignite a coalition of defenders amongst the other states.

 

(...)

I imagine an anarchist society would have physical defenses, but would be defended far more effectively by a similar creditor status and economic ties.(...)

 

This makes sense, I'll think about it and see if I can work an argument out of this idea.

 

(...)

In addition, I imagine that, even if there is a geographic region on a map one can point to, such a society would make Swiss cheese of the modern political map with communities all around the world (not restricting itself to one place). At that point, there will be no singular country for a state to invade and conquer anarchic society; and any such attack would ultimately become economic suicide (leaders proposing the scheme would be ostracized etc.). (...)

 

The problem is that that can probably be said about previous anarchist societies too, and they didn't last

 

 

 

 

It is important to define what you mean by anarchist society.  (...)

I mean a society where there is no Govt (an organization with a monopoly over the use of force in that geographical area.), a stateless society.

 

 

(...) What we tend to mean is a society which fully acknowledges the NAP. Statelessness is an effect on the societies implementation of the NAP. What others mean is simply a society without a government. (...)

 

Yes, that is what I meant, a society without a Govt.

 

He argues for a society that has a Govt but respects the NAP (because there would be no taxation, only voluntary donations.)

 

 

(...)

. But to play with it anyway, one answer is if a society were to play by the NAP, then capitalism would have flung the society hundreds of years ahead of all other societies.

(...)

 

True, the problem is, how do we keep this anarchist system long enough without being conquered

 

 

(...)Another answer is to accept that it may not have been possible in the past due to a numerous amount of reasons, but that it is now possible because of light speed communication and WMDs.

 

This is useful. I'll see if I can figure out how exactly those new technologies help an anarchist society to not get conquered

[powder]

No, he already accepts the validity of the NAP; he's an Objectivist and he thinks that government should be funded by people donating money voluntarily to the Govt. There would be no forced taxation in his ideal country.

 

If it is voluntary, then it is not a government, it is not the initiation of force.  there is no argument here.  

[luxfelix]

The problem is that that can probably be said about previous anarchist societies too, and they didn't last

 

I would then argue (though it is admittedly a bit of a stretch) that previous anarchist societies did last and do thrive into today in the form of the elite memberships currently controlling the mechanisms of statecraft; they by no means embody the ethos of philosophical examination (otherwise they wouldn't be using governments like exclusive access ladder-hatches), but unto themselves they confer sovereignty (if predominately along the lines of jus sanguinis).

 

(I'm reminded of the Charlie Chaplin quote at the end of The Great Dictator where he states that they free themselves by enslaving the world.)

[dsayers]

No, he already accepts the validity of the NAP; he's an Objectivist and he thinks that government should be funded by people donating money voluntarily to the Govt. There would be no forced taxation in his ideal country.

 

Minarchism is one of the easiest ideas to debunk. Either the initiation of the use of force is immoral or it isn't. If it isn't, then there's no reason to reduce government at all. If it is, there's no reason to abide any government at all. He doesn't accept that the initiation of the use of force is immoral if he thinks that minarchy is a valid conclusion.

 

If something has voluntary funding, it wouldn't be a government. Also, even if his ideal country was funded voluntarily, it's edicts would still not be voluntary. If your portrayal of his position is accurate, then for him to say "government should be funded by..." he's starting from the position that government is necessary, which is begging the question. For as long as this is true, he will not consider any methodology that leads to a conclusion where government is not necessary.

 

You say he mentioned Spain. I'm not intimately familiar with that, but wasn't that an example of the aftermath of a government collapsing? When a church burns down, you cannot accurately describe the congregation as atheists. If statists are present where a government collapses, of course that "anarchy" will not last. This is precisely WHY it's important that we help others to see that the initiation of the use of force is immoral. When the US empire falls, I don't want my neighbors frantically trying to erect a new body to enslave me in its place.

[DaVinci]

Minarchism is one of the easiest ideas to debunk. Either the initiation of the use of force is immoral or it isn't. If it isn't, then there's no reason to reduce government at all. If it is, there's no reason to abide any government at all. He doesn't accept that the initiation of the use of force is immoral if he thinks that minarchy is a valid conclusion.

 

If something has voluntary funding, it wouldn't be a government. Also, even if his ideal country was funded voluntarily, it's edicts would still not be voluntary. If your portrayal of his position is accurate, then for him to say "government should be funded by..." he's starting from the position that government is necessary, which is begging the question. For as long as this is true, he will not consider any methodology that leads to a conclusion where government is not necessary.

 

You say he mentioned Spain. I'm not intimately familiar with that, but wasn't that an example of the aftermath of a government collapsing? When a church burns down, you cannot accurately describe the congregation as atheists. If statists are present where a government collapses, of course that "anarchy" will not last. This is precisely WHY it's important that we help others to see that the initiation of the use of force is immoral. When the US empire falls, I don't want my neighbors frantically trying to erect a new body to enslave me in its place.

So if you have a voluntarily funded... society?... and they accept the NAP, how would that function in a world with statist societies still in existence? Wouldn't it still have a border? Would it still have an army, even if a voluntarily funded one? What is the difference between the edicts you describe above and the "rules" of an anarchic society?

[dsayers]

What is the difference between the edicts you describe above and the "rules" of an anarchic society?

 

What rules? The only rules in a free society would be rules property owners have with regards to others using their property. So I guess the answer to your question would be that the person creating the rules owns the property and the people the rules apply to voluntary chose to abide by them in advance.

 

I mean, isn't consent what makes the difference between rape and love making? Maybe I don't understand the question.

[DaVinci]

What rules? The only rules in a free society would be rules property owners have with regards to others using their property. So I guess the answer to your question would be that the person creating the rules owns the property and the people the rules apply to voluntary chose to abide by them in advance.

 

I mean, isn't consent what makes the difference between rape and love making? Maybe I don't understand the question.

What about the functioning of DRO's and things like that? Aren't those rules that people are agreeing to abide by?

[luxfelix]

I imagine it would look more like coverage maps within state borders, until their eventual abolishment:

 

http://image.cdn.ispot.tv/ad/72hX/verizon-lg-g2-reality-check-large-9.jpg 

[dsayers]

What about the functioning of DRO's and things like that? Aren't those rules that people are agreeing to abide by?

 

Could you be forthcoming please? You went from asking what's the difference between forced and consensual to asking if an article of fiction is voluntary or not. I don't know what you're asking. It almost seems as if you're coming from the supposition that society must be organized from the top down.

 

Present day, car insurance companies offer devices you can put in your car to measure how you drive. If you meet a certain set of standards, you pay less for your insurance. You don't HAVE to utilize this device, you're just going to pay more if you don't. So from my perspective, you first asked what's the difference between this arrangement and legislation (command back by threat of violence). Then you asked whether or not putting such a device in your car voluntarily is a rule that some people agree to.

 

Assuming my interpretation is correct (you offered no feedback after my last expression of confusion), then I guess the answer to your question is: No, fulfilling certain criteria in order to demonstrate lower risk and therefore pay less in insurance is not comparable to some 3rd party that doesn't know you or have any claim over your property threatening you with violence if you do not comply with their arbitrary commands.

 

I apologize if this comes across as frustrating. The differentiation is so simplistic in my mind that I can't help but think that either I'm not understanding where you're coming from or you're not communicating where you're coming from. Does that make sense?

[yagami]

I doubt he actually knows what he is talking about. You should ask him what anarchist society he knows of that was taken over by an outside government. I feel like he is assuming that because they no longer exist then they must have been taken over. I bet if you press him to give examples he wont have an answer.

[Daniel Unplugged]

1)

Nuclear powers don't get invaded.

Stefan has argued more than once that a stateless society with nuclear weapons for 'defence', will not get invaded. I think the argument is flawed, and it will not in fact be a deterrant. The stateless society in question presumably adheres to the non aggression principle. Therefore, dropping a nuke on a city, or any place containing innocent people will not occur. It is a bluff and any remotely competent leader of a statist invading force will call it.

[Josh F]

I think its interesting to ponder.  I once read it took the British hundreds of years to conquer Scotland and Ireland because the people had a decentralized authority, even though they had a small population.  Whereas the British were able to conquer India far quicker.  

[Buggy]

I had a debate with a friend the other day.

He said that an anarchist society would not last very long without being conquered by some government.

I used Stefan's arguments: that governments have no incentive to conquer a society that has no tax structure, etc.

He basically said: "There's been a number of anarchist societies. If what you said is true, then how come not a single one of them could resist being taken over by governments? there aren't any anarchist societies left."

What would be a good answer to this?

Simply because there is no collective consensus or goal to keep anarchy.

As long as that is in place, it will be impossible to implement a (classical) government. 

[luxfelix]

Relevant topic:

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42688-panarchism/