Sercurity in an AC society

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have strong doubt that you even read the posts you respond to as I'm quite certain it's been stated many times that ACers do NOT just trust that everyone will be good.


[/ QUOTE ]

So then what is all this business about social norms not allowing for these types of things to happen?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong AC concept.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
OK suppose the whole world becomes Anarcho-capitalist. What's to stop some rebels from building an Army and annexing a few thousand acres or hiring mercenaries and taking over a continent or two?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basic self-interest. It is in some people's interest to take over and control everyone's lives while it is in everyone else's interest to stop them. If individuals in a society are truly against oppression then it would be very difficult for one group to conquer everyone else.

The case you describe is very similar to US action in Vietnam. Note, though, that the US military was coercively funded and used involuntary labor (this would be very difficult in a society which values freedom) to pursue its conquest of Southeast Asia and STILL failed. It also benefited from patriotism/chauvinism etc...

Here is a question for you: how do you propose that someone funds this continental conquest?

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK suppose the whole world becomes Anarcho-capitalist. What's to stop some rebels from building an Army and annexing a few thousand acres or hiring mercenaries and taking over a continent or two?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basic self-interest. It is in some people's interest to take over and control everyone's lives while it is in everyone else's interest to stop them. If individuals in a society are truly against oppression then it would be very difficult for one group to conquer everyone else.

The case you describe is very similar to US action in Vietnam. Note, though, that the US military was coercively funded and used involuntary labor (this would be very difficult in a society which values freedom) to pursue its conquest of Southeast Asia and STILL failed. It also benefited from patriotism/chauvinism etc...

Here is a question for you: how do you propose that someone funds this continental conquest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... Pillage?

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK suppose the whole world becomes Anarcho-capitalist. What's to stop some rebels from building an Army and annexing a few thousand acres or hiring mercenaries and taking over a continent or two?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basic self-interest. It is in some people's interest to take over and control everyone's lives while it is in everyone else's interest to stop them. If individuals in a society are truly against oppression then it would be very difficult for one group to conquer everyone else.

The case you describe is very similar to US action in Vietnam. Note, though, that the US military was coercively funded and used involuntary labor (this would be very difficult in a society which values freedom) to pursue its conquest of Southeast Asia and STILL failed. It also benefited from patriotism/chauvinism etc...

Here is a question for you: how do you propose that someone funds this continental conquest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... Pillage?

[/ QUOTE ]

That normally ends with a few ounces of lead in the aggressor. It is very -EV or pillage. This would only work in a society where nobody defends their property.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK suppose the whole world becomes Anarcho-capitalist. What's to stop some rebels from building an Army and annexing a few thousand acres or hiring mercenaries and taking over a continent or two?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basic self-interest. It is in some people's interest to take over and control everyone's lives while it is in everyone else's interest to stop them. If individuals in a society are truly against oppression then it would be very difficult for one group to conquer everyone else.

The case you describe is very similar to US action in Vietnam. Note, though, that the US military was coercively funded and used involuntary labor (this would be very difficult in a society which values freedom) to pursue its conquest of Southeast Asia and STILL failed. It also benefited from patriotism/chauvinism etc...

Here is a question for you: how do you propose that someone funds this continental conquest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... Pillage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rich people are much, much harder to pillage than poor people. It's no wonder the Mongols were able to pwn all those villages, the people at the time didn't have the resources to stop them. In much the same way, you have warlords in Africa pillaging all the impoverished people in their tents today...but let them try that in Beverly Hills, and they'll be dead on the ground [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
This question has been asked and addressed before, and as nearly as I can tell, the answer is that nothing is stopping them. ACers just trust that people would have the good judgement not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. You guys hate it, but this is the correct answer. anarcho-capitalism isn't realistic because it is susceptible to both economic subterfuge and military aggression from non-anarcho-capitalist states.

In all reality, talking about AC is just a big fat circle-jerk between guys like pvn, Borodog, and hmpoker. Why? Because nobody's going to want to pay protection money 'till they've got a house full of foreign soldiers sitting in their kitchens, drinking their tea. And by then AC'ers will be day late, and a gold-backed dollar short.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
This question has been asked and addressed before, and as nearly as I can tell, the answer is that nothing is stopping them. ACers just trust that people would have the good judgement not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah. You guys hate it, but this is the correct answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both of you guys' problems are highlighted in bold for your convenience.

The workability of the private production of defense has been carefully explained numerous times, and you don't even try to understand it, much less attempt to refute it.

The Private Production of Defense

The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Porudction

[fluxrad]

Boro,

Your links are rather long and meandering. But I love some of the quotes:

From the first article:

[ QUOTE ]
The picture appears even bleaker when we
consider foreign affairs. Never during its entire
history has the continental U.S. been territorially
attacked by any foreign army.

[/ QUOTE ]

James Madison would beg to differ. Historical inaccuracies are hardly the way to begin an argument.

[ QUOTE ]
The empirical evidence thus seems clear. The
belief in a protective state appears to be a patent
error, and the American experiment in protective
statism a complete failure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nowhere in anything read up to this point did Hoppe demonstrate this.

I stopped reading at this point because it's obvious Hoppe's piece is a meandering philosophical diatribe. There does, of course, appear to be plenty of supporting evidence for those who have already come to Hoppe's conclusion.

Moreover, in skimming the article, I don't believe hoppe addressed the question of collective insurance against invasion, or what the compelling interest would be in purchasing said insurance.

Finally, to this:

[ QUOTE ]

The workability of the private production of defense has been carefully explained numerous times, and you don't even try to understand it, much less attempt to refute it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not searched for and read every post of yours and do not intend to. Second, almost all of these "refutations" you speak of (that I have read) seem to come in the form of links to the Mises institute (or, oddly enough, phrases like "this has already been answered). An argument that simply says "look here" is no argument at all.

I don't have the inclination or the time to read a 20 page article on the philosophy of national defense, much less a 464 page treatise on all things security. If you'd like to comb through either of the links (all 500 pages) and quote the relevant entries, I'd be happy to read them in this thread. Otherwise, the gist of what little I read seemed to have been directed towards non-state actors or the notion that, "Countries with governments have been invaded before; Anarcho-capitalism can't do any worse."

On the contrary - since no real mechanism for a true national defense was spelled out (that I saw), Anarcho-Capitalism can do much worse. Again, please feel free to cite anything I've missed that might have been glaringly obvious.

And just to make sure the question doesn't get lost: How the an anarcho-capitalist state protect itself from external aggression? I don't care about Peter robbing Paul, and so far the philosophical arguments I've seen have been lackluster at best (re: your first link).

Feel free to use as many pejoratives as you feel you need in your response. e.g. "...you don't even try to..."

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK suppose the whole world becomes Anarcho-capitalist. What's to stop some rebels from building an Army and annexing a few thousand acres or hiring mercenaries and taking over a continent or two?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basic self-interest. It is in some people's interest to take over and control everyone's lives while it is in everyone else's interest to stop them. If individuals in a society are truly against oppression then it would be very difficult for one group to conquer everyone else.

The case you describe is very similar to US action in Vietnam. Note, though, that the US military was coercively funded and used involuntary labor (this would be very difficult in a society which values freedom) to pursue its conquest of Southeast Asia and STILL failed. It also benefited from patriotism/chauvinism etc...

Here is a question for you: how do you propose that someone funds this continental conquest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... Pillage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rich people are much, much harder to pillage than poor people. It's no wonder the Mongols were able to pwn all those villages, the people at the time didn't have the resources to stop them. In much the same way, you have warlords in Africa pillaging all the impoverished people in their tents today...but let them try that in Beverly Hills, and they'll be dead on the ground [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about that. If the Crips decide to all jump in their lowriders and hit Beverly hills I think they could hit a couple of mansions before their time ran out and they had to run.... I wonder if we could make a Reality series about this....