A Proxy Information War.

[RichardY]

I've been thinking a lot about the "Migration Crisis" in Europe, which if you think about it is more of a case of justice and the natural rights of its citizens. That rather than fight basically Marxism across the board, would it make more sense for people concerned enough with Liberty to focus on one country as a Proxy say Iceland. 

 

Although I have heard they have a "Nordic Welfare System" perhaps the people's IQ is high enough there to Embrace the NAP and disband or otherwise ignore the state. With a population of 329,100 it might be easier to focus on one country which can be more easily broken down into smaller population segments per number of Activists World wide, at least if there was one country that was Anarcho-Capitalist that could be seen as an example to the rest of the World, it might set a precedent for the rest of Europe.

 

I was also thinking that given the financial crisis and the recent Panama leaks implicating the Icelandic Prime Minister the people may be more susceptible to no enforced government. Also given that fewer people hit their kids? and Iceland has the oldest parliamentary system in the world, would this be the best place to start?

 

I also thought that if the situation in Europe deteriorates further into Mumbai Style open conflict, an example of a Free Society could provide the "Ideological Strength" to others throughout Europe, for example the Spanish Civil War.

 

[luxfelix]

Iceland often pops up on the radar when researching historical examples of libertarian-esque societies (something about free-market law chieftains and the Icelandic Althing?). 

 

What's this now about Iceland and the Panama leaks?

[vahleeb]

You can't focus on Iceland because you can't have an AnCap country. The concept is self contradictory. Either the world is AnCap and the concept of countries doesn't have any relevance, or there is no AnCap.

[RichardY]

I concede the point on Anarcho-Capitalist "country". But would it be possible to have an Anarcho-Capitalist Region, with a large enough number of people that no longer recognise the Moral Authority of enforced government, especially after voting in multiple different parties in an effort to remove corruption and so do not pay taxes towards its upkeep. The Icelandic Prime Minister was recently implicated in having investments in the banking sector and so was in a situation to profit from preferential legislation.

 

Why would the World have to be Anarcho-Capitalist isn't most of people's day to day lives based on voluntary transactions still? 

[vahleeb]

Correct me if I'm wrong RichardY, but your point was let's focus on Iceland and have them realise how cancerous the concept of state really is and convert every Icelander to the AnCap philosophy.

 

At this point you are making a targeted call to action, so an examination of outcomes might be warranted. Let's assume we're successful and Iceland becomes the paradise where all governement services are disbanned overnight and no one pays an ounce of tax anymore. Iceland is a member of NATO, but since ancap means no rulers, that membership would become void. Iceland is also sitting on a lot of free energy (geothermal). How long before one of the states opposed to NATO who haven't converted to ancap invade? Iceland's 3 ships and 4 planes aren't going to put up much of a fight (btw, I know it sounds made up but those are real numbers). At this point what's going to happen to all the Icelandic ancaps? Well, they'll either accept their new russian rulers or die and since the state of Iceland has no more allies due to ancap policies, no one will step in. Historically, if Iceland goes ancap first, they might end up as the case study to the dangers of becoming ancap.

 

Stefan's prefered go to when discussing why ancap states can never be invaded is because there is a natural defence provided by a large stretch of land, that is densely populated, not minerally valuable and with zero tax structures in place. Iceland is a sparsely populated island, that's sitting on a "pile of gold". That's three out of the four natural defences put out the window and people can invade for other reasons than to take over the tax base, like to get the free energy.

 

I, on the other hand, am making an argument for "the entire world" needing to turn to an ancap philosophy, because ancaps need to disarm the guys with guns first (US, UK, Germany, Russia, China), otherwise it's a losing battle.

[rickheere]

http://www.idea.int/vt/viewdata.cfm#prebuilt=yes&countries=63,68,52,74,83,109,102,104,111,136,134,165,201,197,77,14,21,53,61,130,135,139,164,42&types=parl&fields=vt,reg,vap,pop&logurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.idea.int%2Fvt%2Fviewdata.cfm&timemode=all&quickView=true&qid=668791&d=2&h=16&m=44
Source shows us that Iceland is among the highest "Voter Turn­out" countries in north/east Europe (at least in the last parliamentary elections). 

Yesterday there ware protests for the resignation of the prime minister, not the cabinet let alone the state.

I don't see how Iceland can be considered anywhere close to being anarchic.

[RichardY]

I guess China or North Korea could go Red Dawn on Iceland if it were Anarcho-Capitalist and Fear of the unknown might dissuade some people to more of a night watchman state. But why doesn't China or North Korea just go and invade countries that are not part of any major alliance at the moment, would the political fallout be worth the invasion? Why not just pay the Icelanders for their goods, wouldn't that be cheaper? With the free energy situation, would putting a power cord running from Iceland to say Russia be expensive why not pay Icelanders some money for their free energy, what would Russia do with all the free energy?

 

If making the argument for making the entire World go Anarcho-Capitalist, do people with an I.Q of 80 have the mental capacity to accept not having rulers in their lives? 

 

As with making the Big Five go Anarcho-Capitalist, I only really see the USA with any chance of going Anarcho-Capitalist state by state given its Common and Natural Law basis. I'm not sure how there would be enough supporters of Anarcho-Capitalism to change the viewpoint of the other countries given media and central state control and/or culturally enriched populations.

 

With the Large Voter turnout, that's exactly why Iceland would be a good target, the people believe they can make a difference, whether they're persuaded to go Anarcho-Capitalist piece by piece, or all at once would be a question of strategy, commitment and sanity of Anarcho-Capitalism.

 

Maybe, through one of the Business Companies or Organisations in Iceland they could rent or crowd-fund a Nuke from an established country as an insurance policy.

 

Is there a better/happier alternative to Anarcho-Capitalist regions?

[vahleeb]

You raise two excellent points, RichardY, but I think I can still rally

 

Both of us have left out the one major incentive for why Russia or China (North Korea can't probably afford to invade a McDonalds, let alone fly an invasion battalion all the way across the world) would go Red Dawn on Iceland and also one of the major incentives why no-one would intervene on behalf of Iceland, which is: "statists cannot allow an anarchist society to succeed, because it will show the monkeys that there is life outside the cages" which would trump the "cheaper to trade than to invade" argument.

 

Countries don't go around invading other countries today (unless they're named the USA) because either they are content with the state of status quo or they don't want to risk the US objecting and beginning an armed conflict by proxy. The only countries that still do it, though, are Russia (see Ukraine, Georgia a few years ago, Transnistria more years ago) and China to a smaller extent (just some China Sea territorial disputes with Japan and South Korea).

 

The second point is the IQ issue and I do think that might be insurmountable with the current world trends. But going back to Stefan's "crusade", stopping the abuse on children is the best way to "grow" IQ and probably the only constructive approach that we can take world wide.

 

I'd argue that out of all the countries in the world Switzerland is closer to a place where ancap could take roots (a foundation of direct participation democracy that goes back to the depths of history and a healthy respect for their own population - the single country that banned the building of mosques through referendum thus blocking the influx of low-IQ population, used to have a forfeiture-style tax system - pay this much then we don't audit, we don't ask any questions) but the current influence of the US has taken them back somewhat especially on the banking side of things.

 

There may be intermediary steps on the way to a world of ancap which involves advocating for smaller states, for the introduction of a voluntary tax, but if you just want to stay consistent from a moral standpoint, then you can't really support the intermediary steps and all you're left with is "stop hitting children" because it will grow the IQ all over the world and once you get a high IQ society people will stop needing rulers.

 

The trouble that I see with an AnCap region springing up somewhere on the globe is that all the states will get an infinite incentive to destabilise and occupy it as fast as possible and if that happens it will put out the flame of AnCap for the entire world. Interventionist policies based on political ideology is not something that is exactly foreign. For instance, after the US independence they have been dedicated to spreading republicanism all over the world and abolishing monarchies regardless of the destabilisation or the human cost of that program. Just look at Iran and Vietnam as the last two examples of a very long line of monarchies that saw their fates end at the hands of American intervention.

 

[Cornetto97]

So when they invade then what? You said yourself, there isn't really a country in anarcho capitalism, there are just different regions. So say they do invade how would they go about getting 329,000 people to subdue to their state after only just overthrowing the state? See in a normal invasion the existing state surrenders to the invading state if they're successful. An example is when half of France was surrendered to the germans by the french government. It is so much easier to invade a country with an established authority that the population is already subjigated by, because it is merely like a change of ownership, the people surrender becasue the state did. But with all different regions, organising differently, all with no established authority, and a mutual interest of not allowing another state to develop, this would be extremely expensive.

 

So Russia have nukes, a huge army, and Massive airforce. What good would that be? You see in war strikes against the civilians are used as a tool for evoking surrender, for example the nukes on japan. But let's say japan is anarcho capitalist, and america just want their resources, and tax livestock. Ok well then decimating two whole cities is the worst possible way to achieve this. This takes russian nukes and prolonged bombing campaigns out of the picture. It's like when the soviet union wanted to quell the revolution in hungary in the 50s, they failed at first, largely due to the urban environment of budapest, their tanks were surrounded by alleyways and buildings, and the use of unfettered force was out of the picture because the USSR did not want to incur the cost of restoring budapest. Ofcourse they did use massive force after the red army was driven out, but the success of the second attack is largely attributed to deceitful tactics by the USSR and a fake surrender, so the use of huge amounts of force were lessened, again, it was the state that were tricked, and with that the people were fooled into believing they had won, instead of actually seeing the red amries slow pincer movement towards Budapest as a call to arms, they layed down their arms and began focusing on the politics.

 

So let's say Russia invade, and attempt to establish a republic, and a vassal state in Iceland. It would be extremely hard to walk the line of not decimating the land and the agrarian capabilities, and the buildings, and the ifrastructure, whilst at the same time, quelling a guerilla uprising in the already annexed regions, and trying to advance to other regions. Each with varying levels of organisation, and which Russia would most likely have no intelligence over, because epionage is quite difficult without a state apparatus to penetrate. So would the cost benefit of such a scenario be at all in the favour of invasion for a country that already has vast amounts of natural resources, as oppose to that of peaceful trade?

[RichardY]

In Reply to: Vahleeb

 

Although I can see the Machiavellian perspective of, whoever doesn't destroy a free city commits a grave error. With states being increasingly arbitrary, I'm thinking the Prevent Strategy in the UK, hate speech laws and Non reporting of Crimes in Sweden, The Gallows are being built anyway, would it be better to wait for when more people show up, for or against and the noose is tightening? In England we have a potential next Prime Minister that looks a lot like Comrade Lenin and has very similar policies. 

 

If there is no action to reverse the trend, would the best course of action be for anyone wishing to preserve some level of living standard for themselves in Europe flee to countries with perhaps a longer fuse, say Australia, New Zealand, Canada  and The USA, or buy property in areas of Europe likely to sink last? Then basically report from their new basement or not, and spread the Idea of Liberty and NAP.

 

To stay consistent from a moral standpoint. Could that involve choosing the lesser evil when there are no other viable options? Using force to stop an old lady crossing into traffic who is not looking properly. Or even using the Aggression Principle when in Politics for self or clan preservation or to vacate yourself from the situation.

 

Although I subscribe to not hitting children even for "discipline" given that a lot of 3rd Worlders do, would the non spanked children of say Sweden in the absence of an Ideal like Anarcho-Capitalism,  be lambs to the slaughter when Genghis Khan or Islamic Hitler come knocking. In such a situation, would the most humane solution be balkanisation again, in such a situation should people continue to pay tax? Can a tax ever be voluntary? Is there ever a time for action?

[RichardY]

In Reply to: Cornetto97

 

I'm not sure it would even come to Russia invading, before Iceland would pull out of NATO. If the USA was that worried they may even occupy Iceland with a military base if they have not done so already. I doubt the people of Iceland would attack a military base, especially if the American Soldiers were buying stuff in the country. France even withdrew from NATO under Charles de Gaulle.

 

More Statist countries around the World could try an embargo, but unless they surrounded the country at great cost I don't believe it would be effective. What might be effective is if they tried to buy loyalty and then imported sympathisers, but again that would have to be sustained at great Financial and Political Cost, how many pieces of silver for your soul?

 

Perhaps the greater threat is if some decides its their Manifest Destiny through Religious, Communist or Racial grounds to kill and enslave no matter what.

[Cornetto97]

Just look at Iran and Vietnam as the last two examples of a very long line of monarchies that saw their fates end at the hands of American intervention.

Interesting point because both cases are to do with largely state profiteering. So in vietnam, communism is a huge blow to the established interconnected system of big banks and central banking. Naturally being against petty bourgeios capitalism, they don't tend to conduct trade, and won't be very inclined to accept the dollar reserve standard. Iran also got rid od the dollar reserve standard, and began establishing their own trade agreements with Russia, which also is a sure way to have america invade you. So it's more the fact that these ideologies represented challenge to the financial interests of the weatern governments, mainly USA. So question now is, will anarcho capitalism evoke a similar reaction? It's still capitalist, it still conducts trade, but does going against the established world banking system and ridding itself of national currency and the dollar standard warrant enough benefits for an invasion of an ancap region?

I'm not sure it would even come to Russia invading, before Iceland would pull out of NATO. If the USA was that worried they may even occupy Iceland with a military base if they have not done so already. I doubt the people of Iceland would attack a military base, especially if the American Soldiers were buying stuff in the country. France even withdrew from NATO under Charles de Gaulle.

 

Could you clarify this, because if america were to forcefully place a military base in iceland then that would be taken as an invasion, therefore an attack will surely happen. Also, seen as there is no state owned anything in an ancap state, where would they set up the military base without the need of initiating force on the land owners? This force may even lead to the arrest, or killing of the landowners, which would surely gain massive amounts of backlash, from multiple places. What if the American public were to hear of such an act against peaceful people who posed no threat? what would the army do? Would the soldiers not question why they are killing or detaining these people to set up a military base in a region that poses zero threat to national security?

[RichardY]

The USA military occupied Iceland during WW2 for very important strategic reasons, despite Icelandic neutrality. Given that the cultures have no axe to grind and there are existing facilities on the Island, killing landowners would make no sense whatsoever and I can't see the bases exacting tribute from the Icelanders. We're probably talking mostly sheep farms anyway, the landowners may well be very happy to sell and if they don't, how bad is it going to look on the state that evicts them? The bases would probably bring in much more money then a few thousand acres of low fertility grazing land. The resource use may not be "optimal", but if more and more countries follow suit and become Anarcho-Capitalist regions, who going to pay to maintain a jet fighter and an airbase they would eventually be sold or abandoned.

 

Maybe Intelligence Agencies could sabotage infrastructure and carry-out nefarious acts, but why would they do that? If it was ever found out or leaked how damming is that going to look? If the people give into Fear without even looking at the reason, and sacrifice a little Liberty, for a little "security" what point is there? Might as well just abandon the NAP.   

[Cornetto97]

The USA military occupied Iceland during WW2 for very important strategic reasons, despite Icelandic neutrality. Given that the cultures have no axe to grind and there are existing facilities on the Island, killing landowners would make no sense whatsoever and I can't see the bases exacting tribute from the Icelanders. We're probably talking mostly sheep farms anyway, the landowners may well be very happy to sell and if they don't, how bad is it going to look on the state that evicts them? The bases would probably bring in much more money then a few thousand acres of low fertility grazing land. The resource use may not be "optimal", but if more and more countries follow suit and become Anarcho-Capitalist regions, who going to pay to maintain a jet fighter and an airbase they would eventually be sold or abandoned.

 

Maybe Intelligence Agencies could sabotage infrastructure and carry-out nefarious acts, but why would they do that? If it was ever found out or leaked how damming is that going to look? If the people give into Fear without even looking at the reason, and sacrifice a little Liberty, for a little "security" what point is there? Might as well just abandon the NAP.

Ok i think there is some confusion here are you saying America places a military base in an anarcho capitalist iceland for strategic defense reasons? Because i thought you were saying for offensive reasons. Are you talking about an ancap region allowing the USA and or other countries to establish military bases as defense until more societies become ancap and they are no longer needed?

[vahleeb]

 

In Reply to: Vahleeb

 

Although I can see the Machiavellian perspective of, whoever doesn't destroy a free city commits a grave error. With states being increasingly arbitrary, I'm thinking the Prevent Strategy in the UK, hate speech laws and Non reporting of Crimes in Sweden, The Gallows are being built anyway, would it be better to wait for when more people show up, for or against and the noose is tightening? In England we have a potential next Prime Minister that looks a lot like Comrade Lenin and has very similar policies. 

 

If there is no action to reverse the trend, would the best course of action be for anyone wishing to preserve some level of living standard for themselves in Europe flee to countries with perhaps a longer fuse, say Australia, New Zealand, Canada  and The USA, or buy property in areas of Europe likely to sink last? Then basically report from their new basement or not, and spread the Idea of Liberty and NAP.

 

To stay consistent from a moral standpoint. Could that involve choosing the lesser evil when there are no other viable options? Using force to stop an old lady crossing into traffic who is not looking properly. Or even using the Aggression Principle when in Politics for self or clan preservation or to vacate yourself from the situation.

 

Although I subscribe to not hitting children even for "discipline" given that a lot of 3rd Worlders do, would the non spanked children of say Sweden in the absence of an Ideal like Anarcho-Capitalism,  be lambs to the slaughter when Genghis Khan or Islamic Hitler come knocking. In such a situation, would the most humane solution be balkanisation again, in such a situation should people continue to pay tax? Can a tax ever be voluntary? Is there ever a time for action?

 

 

The best militant for the AnCap cause is an increase of the authoritarian nature of the state coupled with a moral discrediting of said state and politics thanks to inept rulers. There is an action to reverse the trend and that is peaceful parenting. If the need for rulers is pretty much born out of the moral slight of hand performed by authoritarian parents, then removing the base cause should break the chain.

 

Also, people of high IQ and no parental corruption when coming into contact with religious nuts don't just surrender themselves, but instead rather outright reject them. 

 

I agree with you that maintaining a pure moral position seems like a losing cause, but if we start using arguments from effect instead of arguments from morality, we're no better than statists. That being said, I have long flirted with the idea of moving to New Zealand myself.

[vahleeb]

So when they invade then what? You said yourself, there isn't really a country in anarcho capitalism, there are just different regions. So say they do invade how would they go about getting 329,000 people to subdue to their state after only just overthrowing the state? See in a normal invasion the existing state surrenders to the invading state if they're successful. An example is when half of France was surrendered to the germans by the french government. It is so much easier to invade a country with an established authority that the population is already subjigated by, because it is merely like a change of ownership, the people surrender becasue the state did. But with all different regions, organising differently, all with no established authority, and a mutual interest of not allowing another state to develop, this would be extremely expensive.

 

So Russia have nukes, a huge army, and Massive airforce. What good would that be? You see in war strikes against the civilians are used as a tool for evoking surrender, for example the nukes on japan. But let's say japan is anarcho capitalist, and america just want their resources, and tax livestock. Ok well then decimating two whole cities is the worst possible way to achieve this. This takes russian nukes and prolonged bombing campaigns out of the picture. It's like when the soviet union wanted to quell the revolution in hungary in the 50s, they failed at first, largely due to the urban environment of budapest, their tanks were surrounded by alleyways and buildings, and the use of unfettered force was out of the picture because the USSR did not want to incur the cost of restoring budapest. Ofcourse they did use massive force after the red army was driven out, but the success of the second attack is largely attributed to deceitful tactics by the USSR and a fake surrender, so the use of huge amounts of force were lessened, again, it was the state that were tricked, and with that the people were fooled into believing they had won, instead of actually seeing the red amries slow pincer movement towards Budapest as a call to arms, they layed down their arms and began focusing on the politics.

 

So let's say Russia invade, and attempt to establish a republic, and a vassal state in Iceland. It would be extremely hard to walk the line of not decimating the land and the agrarian capabilities, and the buildings, and the ifrastructure, whilst at the same time, quelling a guerilla uprising in the already annexed regions, and trying to advance to other regions. Each with varying levels of organisation, and which Russia would most likely have no intelligence over, because epionage is quite difficult without a state apparatus to penetrate. So would the cost benefit of such a scenario be at all in the favour of invasion for a country that already has vast amounts of natural resources, as oppose to that of peaceful trade?

 

I'm afraid the arguments you put forward are defeated by the geographical reality of Iceland. It is a self contained territory (the people can't just up and leave unless they're really good swimmers) that currently has no standing army. There is no need to bomb Iceland, you can just invade it with boots on the ground and encircle the strategic objectives (mining, geothermal plants) and not care about the "people" who live there. An AnCap society can't really organise itself into a guerrilla war situation (because they prefer trade to war, and any militaristic style organisation is far removed from AnCap philosophy).

 

In the end, the islanders would have a simple choice, submit to the new rulers and renounce their AnCap ways, or subsist around the remains of the island that isn't taken over by the Russians.

 

You're committing the age-old sin of assuming something (war) will guide itself by the guidelines that are set in stone thanks to the status quo of today, even though tomorrow the status quo that set the guidelines will no longer be relevant. It is more cost-efficient to demand surrender from a state today because the concept of state exists, but where there is no state, what's to stop just a military expedition with the goal of taking over industrial locations? Remember that the biggest deterrent of violence in an AnCap society is ostracism which is why they afford not to have a military which they couldn't afford without taxation anyway. 

 

Interesting point because both cases are to do with largely state profiteering. So in vietnam, communism is a huge blow to the established interconnected system of big banks and central banking. Naturally being against petty bourgeios capitalism, they don't tend to conduct trade, and won't be very inclined to accept the dollar reserve standard. Iran also got rid od the dollar reserve standard, and began establishing their own trade agreements with Russia, which also is a sure way to have america invade you.

 

I don't think you have the correct chain of events historically. Vietnam, prior to the French colonisation in the 1800s was organised as an empire similar to the Chinese style with the Imperial capital at Hue. The royal family swung back and forth between support for the French and being the symbol of national opposition. During the War, the Empire of Vietnam was proclaimed again under Japanese occupation with Emperor Bao Dai in charge. After the war it was decided that Vietnam would return under a French mandate, but due to the fact that France was incapable of re-taking Vietnam, it was agreed that the PRC would enter from the north and establish control while the British entered from the south. Both powers were to stabilise the region and prepare for a handover to the French. That was something that the PRC were unwilling to do thusly creating the Republic of North Vietnam. South Vietnam was supported by the non-communist countries and as late as 1954 it was organised as an Empire under Emperor Bao Dai and the direction was unifying the Empire under Bao Dai. However, after the French were defetead at Dien Bien Phu and the Americans picked up the fight, and one year later, the problem had changed from the reunification of Vietnam under a historical and constitutional form of rule, to a competition between which republic (North or South) should have dominance over the territory each with much the same historical legitimacy.

 

The Iranian denunciation of petro-dollars is something much more recent that belongs to the Islamic Republic period rather than the Shahdom, so it could not have been a reason for the toppling of the Shah.

[Cornetto97]

I'm afraid the arguments you put forward are defeated by the geographical reality of Iceland. It is a self contained territory (the people can't just up and leave unless they're really good swimmers) that currently has no standing army. There is no need to bomb Iceland, you can just invade it with boots on the ground and encircle the strategic objectives (mining, geothermal plants) and not care about the "people" who live there. An AnCap society can't really organise itself into a guerrilla war situation (because they prefer trade to war, and any militaristic style organisation is far removed from AnCap philosophy).

 

In the end, the islanders would have a simple choice, submit to the new rulers and renounce their AnCap ways, or subsist around the remains of the island that isn't taken over by the Russians.

 

Why can't they organise into guerilla force? I mean yes ancaps much prefer the prospect of peaceful trade, but to say organising a guerilla style defense against invading forces is against ancap philosophy and therefore can't occur doesn't hold ground. Ancaps are pacifists mostly, prefer peace of course, but to form a guerilla style defense is not breaking any rules about initiation of force. Defense is not the initiation of force, the force was initiated by the invaders and therefore the use of force to defend against them in a guerilla style organisation is far from violating the NAP and ancap philosophy. If someone has a gun to your head, you are very much within reason to use force against them.

 

They would have to care about the people who live there, because who is going to work the resources when a republic is proclaimed? Again occupation and invasion is always so much more expensive than defense. The USA military training the mujahideen told them about economics of war, this 10,000 dollar shoulder mounted launcher will take out that million dollar jet. Just look at USA now who have exploded the national debt and crippled their economy slowly yet surely in their invasions of multiple countries at a time. If invasion was that easy iraq would never have been as expensive as it was. They toppled saddam, so why couldn't they just proclaim a republic and be done with it? How come it took them so long to establish a new governmnet there? Would not the same happen in Iceland? Would Russian troops not be constantly bombarded with homemade devices, and scattered guerilla groups using short strike and hide tactics? This would surely grind down the morale of the occupying soldiers. So this brings me to the same point, is it worth it? You say that it is a mistake to assume warfare is constant and the same, and i understand that. It never used to involve civilians amd now it does. But one thing about warfar is objectively pretty constant, the economics of warfare.

[Cornetto97]

I don't think you have the correct chain of events historically. Vietnam, prior to the French colonisation in the 1800s was organised as an empire similar to the Chinese style with the Imperial capital at Hue. The royal family swung back and forth between support for the French and being the symbol of national opposition. During the War, the Empire of Vietnam was proclaimed again under Japanese occupation with Emperor Bao Dai in charge. After the war it was decided that Vietnam would return under a French mandate, but due to the fact that France was incapable of re-taking Vietnam, it was agreed that the PRC would enter from the north and establish control while the British entered from the south. Both powers were to stabilise the region and prepare for a handover to the French. That was something that the PRC were unwilling to do thusly creating the Republic of North Vietnam. South Vietnam was supported by the non-communist countries and as late as 1954 it was organised as an Empire under Emperor Bao Dai and the direction was unifying the Empire under Bao Dai. However, after the French were defetead at Dien Bien Phu and the Americans picked up the fight, and one year later, the problem had changed from the reunification of Vietnam under a historical and constitutional form of rule, to a competition between which republic (North or South) should have dominance over the territory each with much the same historical legitimacy.

 

The Iranian denunciation of petro-dollars is something much more recent that belongs to the Islamic Republic period rather than the Shahdom, so it could not have been a reason for the toppling of the Shah.

My mistake i misinterpreted your comment about iran and vietnam before. You were talking about the US toppling monarchies, and i rushed into it without properly reading it, and absorbing it. Sorry about that one

[labmath2]

Why can't they organise into guerilla force? I mean yes ancaps much prefer the prospect of peaceful trade, but to say organising a guerilla style defense against invading forces is against ancap philosophy and therefore can't occur doesn't hold ground. Ancaps are pacifists mostly, prefer peace of course, but to form a guerilla style defense is not breaking any rules about initiation of force. Defense is not the initiation of force, the force was initiated by the invaders and therefore the use of force to defend against them in a guerilla style organisation is far from violating the NAP and ancap philosophy. If someone has a gun to your head, you are very much within reason to use force against them.

 

They would have to care about the people who live there, because who is going to work the resources when a republic is proclaimed? Again occupation and invasion is always so much more expensive than defense. The USA military training the mujahideen told them about economics of war, this 10,000 dollar shoulder mounted launcher will take out that million dollar jet. Just look at USA now who have exploded the national debt and crippled their economy slowly yet surely in their invasions of multiple countries at a time. If invasion was that easy iraq would never have been as expensive as it was. They toppled saddam, so why couldn't they just proclaim a republic and be done with it? How come it took them so long to establish a new governmnet there? Would not the same happen in Iceland? Would Russian troops not be constantly bombarded with homemade devices, and scattered guerilla groups using short strike and hide tactics? This would surely grind down the morale of the occupying soldiers. So this brings me to the same point, is it worth it? You say that it is a mistake to assume warfare is constant and the same, and i understand that. It never used to involve civilians amd now it does. But one thing about warfar is objectively pretty constant, the economics of warfare.

Is guerilla tactics really effective if your enemies goal is only strategic locations and they do not mind killing civilian en masse to retain control of those locations. One thing i found interesting in a documentary about the sierra leone civil war was how the diamond mine was still operating in the middle of the conflict over diamonds that most fighters never saw.

[vahleeb]

Why can't they organise into guerilla force? I mean yes ancaps much prefer the prospect of peaceful trade, but to say organising a guerilla style defense against invading forces is against ancap philosophy and therefore can't occur doesn't hold ground. Ancaps are pacifists mostly, prefer peace of course, but to form a guerilla style defense is not breaking any rules about initiation of force. Defense is not the initiation of force, the force was initiated by the invaders and therefore the use of force to defend against them in a guerilla style organisation is far from violating the NAP and ancap philosophy. If someone has a gun to your head, you are very much within reason to use force against them.

 

They would have to care about the people who live there, because who is going to work the resources when a republic is proclaimed? Again occupation and invasion is always so much more expensive than defense. The USA military training the mujahideen told them about economics of war, this 10,000 dollar shoulder mounted launcher will take out that million dollar jet. Just look at USA now who have exploded the national debt and crippled their economy slowly yet surely in their invasions of multiple countries at a time. If invasion was that easy iraq would never have been as expensive as it was. They toppled saddam, so why couldn't they just proclaim a republic and be done with it? How come it took them so long to establish a new governmnet there? Would not the same happen in Iceland? Would Russian troops not be constantly bombarded with homemade devices, and scattered guerilla groups using short strike and hide tactics? This would surely grind down the morale of the occupying soldiers. So this brings me to the same point, is it worth it? You say that it is a mistake to assume warfare is constant and the same, and i understand that. It never used to involve civilians amd now it does. But one thing about warfar is objectively pretty constant, the economics of warfare.

 

I agree that it wouldn't be the breaking of the NAP to fight in guerrilla warfare. But, if they were to organise in a guerrilla force it would have to be a totally new style of guerrilla since most if not all guerrilla forces have been historically extremely hierarchical. It's this top-down structure that I think would be the impediment of ancaps organising themselves into because it presupposes some kind of rulers and that goes against the ancap philosophy. Also the second argument is ancap's preference to trade rather than fight. And the third is the disparity of force which would be very in favour of the occupiers. I think these three taken together will put out that the rational self-preserving conclusion would be to submit because the odds of success are too long and the risk of death is too high. That's just my assessment, of course.

 

Occupation and invasion is much more expensive when you're trying to rule whatever you occupy (that is leave the tax-base reasonably intact in order to tax them later), but if you don't care about the population, if you're just in it for the industry and bring your own people over to work it, if you brand all the locals as terrorists and adopt a shoot first ask questions later strategy, 300.000 bullets seem pretty cheap to me.

[Cornetto97]

I agree that it wouldn't be the breaking of the NAP to fight in guerrilla warfare. But, if they were to organise in a guerrilla force it would have to be a totally new style of guerrilla since most if not all guerrilla forces have been historically extremely hierarchical. It's this top-down structure that I think would be the impediment of ancaps organising themselves into because it presupposes some kind of rulers and that goes against the ancap philosophy. Also the second argument is ancap's preference to trade rather than fight. And the third is the disparity of force which would be very in favour of the occupiers. I think these three taken together will put out that the rational self-preserving conclusion would be to submit because the odds of success are too long and the risk of death is too high. That's just my assessment, of course.

 

Occupation and invasion is much more expensive when you're trying to rule whatever you occupy (that is leave the tax-base reasonably intact in order to tax them later), but if you don't care about the population, if you're just in it for the industry and bring your own people over to work it, if you brand all the locals as terrorists and adopt a shoot first ask questions later strategy, 300.000 bullets seem pretty cheap to me.

 

your point about top down organisation, is an intriguing one, but it would be good if you could expand on that thought more, past the historical reason. Why do you think that guerrilla forces are not as effective without strict top down organisation? surely if whole societies can be organised along the exact opposite principles, and be more efficient than a forceful state, then guerrilla forces can? there is no historical context for an ancap society, but you can understand that it would be better than having a state.

 

yes, ancap philosophy and preference to trade go hand in hand, and this tendency towards peaceful trade would also impact on the readiness of the resistance. I guess it would very likely depend on how long Iceland has been Ancap. seen as they have no standing army, quite strict gun laws, so this is a good point. Also you have to take into account the existing culture there, and seen as they have almost non existent defense it would appear they have a culture of peace and comfort. so it could very much depend on how long they have been ancap for. if it has been long enough then surely some form of private defense will have been established in certain regions and on certain properties, as there would be a need for protection from the possibility of invasion, and in a purely free market situation it would be advantageous for this service to be provided somehow.    

 

The situation you describe about an occupation purely for the taking of resources, with shoot on sight orders of the locals, this is basically genocidal and would likely be highly denounced by the west, possibly even incur political repercussions for Russia. This is given the west's narrative against anything Russia does. It could also be seen as Russia attempting to make inroads into the EU. Also a good tool to get some voters, add some humanity into governments that are being seen with increasing skepticism in the west, in particular USA.

[vahleeb]

1.your point about top down organisation, is an intriguing one, but it would be good if you could expand on that thought more, past the historical reason. Why do you think that guerrilla forces are not as effective without strict top down organisation? surely if whole societies can be organised along the exact opposite principles, and be more efficient than a forceful state, then guerrilla forces can? there is no historical context for an ancap society, but you can understand that it would be better than having a state.

 

2.yes, ancap philosophy and preference to trade go hand in hand, and this tendency towards peaceful trade would also impact on the readiness of the resistance. I guess it would very likely depend on how long Iceland has been Ancap. seen as they have no standing army, quite strict gun laws, so this is a good point. Also you have to take into account the existing culture there, and seen as they have almost non existent defense it would appear they have a culture of peace and comfort. so it could very much depend on how long they have been ancap for. if it has been long enough then surely some form of private defense will have been established in certain regions and on certain properties, as there would be a need for protection from the possibility of invasion, and in a purely free market situation it would be advantageous for this service to be provided somehow.    

 

3.The situation you describe about an occupation purely for the taking of resources, with shoot on sight orders of the locals, this is basically genocidal and would likely be highly denounced by the west, possibly even incur political repercussions for Russia. This is given the west's narrative against anything Russia does. It could also be seen as Russia attempting to make inroads into the EU. Also a good tool to get some voters, add some humanity into governments that are being seen with increasing skepticism in the west, in particular USA.

 

I numbered the above 1-3 so I could reply per points. 

 

1) It's quite possible that the reason why guerrilla forces have been organised hierarchically is because they are trying to violently substitute the state which is in itself a hierarchy. But I think it also has to do with efficient military tactics. I think that by definition to escalate from random violence to guerrilla warfare the attacks would have to be coordinated and this coordination can't really be done by committee. This also implies that the "brains" are more important (from a military standpoint) and thusly less prone to being risked in battle. This means some people will be taking more risk of death than others and would do so voluntarily and from a pure ideological standpoint (cooperation would not kill them, just their ideals). Truth be told, who knows? But ancap is all about trade and no rulers which results in peaceful cooperation and guerrilla warfare is like the complete opposite of that.

 

2) I think here we come into a difference in the way we see ancap working. You seem to think that there is room for a DRO that handles external defence, but I (in my World Ancap view) have never found a purpose for that. And I think that even if you start out with a Defence-DRO for an ancap region before ancap takes over the world then, once ancap does take over the world, that DRO needs to disband its service because everything that remains is "policing" and not "defending". I can see nukes (due to the obliterating retaliatory force that can take out the leaders of the invading state) working as a defence for an ancap region, but then you need a state that has nukes to go ancap first, which is why I made the comment about the big guys going ancap first. Iceland could go ancap and try to buy a few nukes, but who would sell them?

 

3) I agree and the thought did cross my mind but here's how I reconciled it. It's highly likely that everything will be covered in propaganda and political spin (rape, child abuse and afterwards terrorism) and then the incentive of the normally opposing states to cooperate with the spin, because of the "kill the free city" policy will ensure that Russia or whomever is not disturbed in their genocide.

[Cornetto97]

I numbered the above 1-3 so I could reply per points.

 

1) It's quite possible that the reason why guerrilla forces have been organised hierarchically is because they are trying to violently substitute the state which is in itself a hierarchy. But I think it also has to do with efficient military tactics. I think that by definition to escalate from random violence to guerrilla warfare the attacks would have to be coordinated and this coordination can't really be done by committee. This also implies that the "brains" are more important (from a military standpoint) and thusly less prone to being risked in battle. This means some people will be taking more risk of death than others and would do so voluntarily and from a pure ideological standpoint (cooperation would not kill them, just their ideals). Truth be told, who knows? But ancap is all about trade and no rulers which results in peaceful cooperation and guerrilla warfare is like the complete opposite of that.

 

2) I think here we come into a difference in the way we see ancap working. You seem to think that there is room for a DRO that handles external defence, but I (in my World Ancap view) have never found a purpose for that. And I think that even if you start out with a Defence-DRO for an ancap region before ancap takes over the world then, once ancap does take over the world, that DRO needs to disband its service because everything that remains is "policing" and not "defending". I can see nukes (due to the obliterating retaliatory force that can take out the leaders of the invading state) working as a defence for an ancap region, but then you need a state that has nukes to go ancap first, which is why I made the comment about the big guys going ancap first. Iceland could go ancap and try to buy a few nukes, but who would sell them?

 

3) I agree and the thought did cross my mind but here's how I reconciled it. It's highly likely that everything will be covered in propaganda and political spin (rape, child abuse and afterwards terrorism) and then the incentive of the normally opposing states to cooperate with the spin, because of the "kill the free city" policy will ensure that Russia or whomever is not disturbed in their genocide.

 

Alright i'll just use the same number format.

 

 

 

1. Yeah, i thought of this, and in a guerilla situation, committe would simply be too inefficient. There'll be slow decision making, because of disagreements, which is not very good in a situation where you need a quick response, hit then hide tactic, so i agree woth you in this point, i guess it would deffinently need a hierarchial structure, not need but it would be much more effective as an armed resistance. The question as to whether this leader will initiate force - i guess that's the issue, if you have a leader in a guerrilla style resistance there isn't really ant checks on him at all. I'm not quite sure about your "brains are more important" point. I can't understamd the explanation you have given for it.

 

2. Well i mean amassing a nuclear arsenal wouldn't be helping the propsganda that the statist countries would very likely be throwing at an ancap region, and may evoke an invasion. I meant that certain regions can establish a defense DRO that can mobilise in the face of invasion, and yes once all regions are ancap, then it's not needed, and would likely fade away once demand diminishes. One problem with this is, it is a matter of whether there would be demand enough to warrant this business model, and i'd say from the looks of it iceland don't really have much military background, so the people don't pay for a standing army in tax, don't see why a lot of them would pay for it from a DRO. But again maybe the threat of invasion is known, in which case demand would be there to warrant the defense DRO business model. But the next problem is armaments imports. Iceland have very strict gun laws and no standing army. Couple this with the likely embargos they would have from statist nations, and it would be very difficult for the defense DROs to actually get armaments, thus the price would be quite high as well.

 

 

3. Yes i agree propaganda would be all over it, but the opportunity for states to be looked at with some form of humanity and just a little respect for human life may not be easily passed up by some. But again it all depends, and I would say that either way it would definently get very clear opposition from all the statist countries, and turbulence would be provoked by stringent economic restrictions.

 

So honestly, you have swayed me, it would appear that iceland is not the best place to have the first ancap society. Perhaps the effort should just continue to be focused towards a general population approach, as oppose to one specific place.

[vahleeb]

Alright i'll just use the same number format.

 

 

 

1. Yeah, i thought of this, and in a guerilla situation, committe would simply be too inefficient. There'll be slow decision making, because of disagreements, which is not very good in a situation where you need a quick response, hit then hide tactic, so i agree woth you in this point, i guess it would deffinently need a hierarchial structure, not need but it would be much more effective as an armed resistance. The question as to whether this leader will initiate force - i guess that's the issue, if you have a leader in a guerrilla style resistance there isn't really ant checks on him at all. I'm not quite sure about your "brains are more important" point. I can't understamd the explanation you have given for it.

 

2. Well i mean amassing a nuclear arsenal wouldn't be helping the propsganda that the statist countries would very likely be throwing at an ancap region, and may evoke an invasion. I meant that certain regions can establish a defense DRO that can mobilise in the face of invasion, and yes once all regions are ancap, then it's not needed, and would likely fade away once demand diminishes. One problem with this is, it is a matter of whether there would be demand enough to warrant this business model, and i'd say from the looks of it iceland don't really have much military background, so the people don't pay for a standing army in tax, don't see why a lot of them would pay for it from a DRO. But again maybe the threat of invasion is known, in which case demand would be there to warrant the defense DRO business model. But the next problem is armaments imports. Iceland have very strict gun laws and no standing army. Couple this with the likely embargos they would have from statist nations, and it would be very difficult for the defense DROs to actually get armaments, thus the price would be quite high as well.

 

 

3. Yes i agree propaganda would be all over it, but the opportunity for states to be looked at with some form of humanity and just a little respect for human life may not be easily passed up by some. But again it all depends, and I would say that either way it would definently get very clear opposition from all the statist countries, and turbulence would be provoked by stringent economic restrictions.

 

So honestly, you have swayed me, it would appear that iceland is not the best place to have the first ancap society. Perhaps the effort should just continue to be focused towards a general population approach, as oppose to one specific place.

 

1. Let me try to make it clearer. When I say "brains are more important" I'm talking about pure military tactics. Good tactics are sometimes superior to better numbers, therefore a good tactician is sometimes more valuable that 100 foot soldiers from a pure militaristic standpoint. That's why "generals" are usually kept from the front lines where a stray bullet can nullify this tactical advantage that exists from having that tactical mind on one's side. This is naturally implemented in the military through the ranking system but for the life of me I don't see it arising from a voluntary perspective. You might say that voluntarism leads to inefficient military practices, which is actually proof that voluntarism is inherently opposite to violence, no?

 

2. The thing I was referring to was the fact that no country possessing nukes has ever been invaded in history. Stefan has made this case numerous times in his videos and the reason for it is that the guy from the invading country that gives the order has to give that order knowing that if one nuke makes it out of the country he's invading, it'll target him and he'll most likely not survive.