ACism in one country or need for a world revolution?

[L'ennemi.]

Acists believes that ACism is not an utopia and could actually work.
My question is rather simple, could it work in just one country, like this United states?
Or is a stateless society only possible with the abolition of all states?

[Nielsio]

1. Anarcho-capitalism cannot 'work'. Anarcho-capitalism cannot do anything because it is not an actor. Only people can act.

2. A stateless society is possible without the abolition of all states. It would thus be a stateless area. I don't see why you would think this would not be possible. For all we know, there are stateless societies all over the universe.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Anarcho-capitalism cannot 'work'. Anarcho-capitalism cannot do anything because it is not an actor. Only people can act.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could define "working" as not resulting the emergence of a new state and not resulting in the eradiction of human life on earth.

[ QUOTE ]
2. A stateless society is possible without the abolition of all states. It would thus be a stateless area.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. The only real worry would be that states out there would be in a position to profitably charge their citizens for a war with your territory, so the AC land would need a territorial defense force that would act like a national army.

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. The only real worry would be that states out there would be in a position to profitably charge their citizens for a war with your territory, so the AC land would need a territorial defense force that would act like a national army.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if this is true. It's pretty clear from current military action, not to mention ample historical precedent, that decentralized regions are much harder to invade and control than centralized areas with lots of government machinery already in place that can be usurped. An AC area that had a similar average wealth, or even significantly lower (look at Iraq/Vietnam), to the invading country would likely be extremely difficult to hold.

That being said, even if an AC area were taken over by surrounding states this isn't really an argument against ACism. Lots of states get taken over by states all the time. If somebody wants to oppress you, and they're a lot more powerful than you, it's going to be difficult to resist oppression whether your an anarchist, a statist, a rhinoceros, whatever.

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Anarcho-capitalism cannot 'work'. Anarcho-capitalism cannot do anything because it is not an actor. Only people can act.

[/ QUOTE ]

1.Sorry if English is only my third language and I do no take time to see if all my sentences are worded correctly on an internet forum...but thanks for the correction anyway.
2.I don't know the state has a lot of international functions. A huge stateless area would cause tons of problems
few questions: Immigration? fight against terror?
Military? I know the Ac arguments for private security but not private compagny would ever be powerful enough to defend alone that kind of territory without becomming de facto another state.
A lot of arguments of ACist are far less compelling if we envision a stateless society surrounded by other states.
I just thought it was a theme woth debating.

[zasterguava]

ACism is not utopian! The idea of a so-called 'market failure' is a communist conspiracy!

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. The only real worry would be that states out there would be in a position to profitably charge their citizens for a war with your territory, so the AC land would need a territorial defense force that would act like a national army.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if this is true. It's pretty clear from current military action, not to mention ample historical precedent, that decentralized regions are much harder to invade and control than centralized areas with lots of government machinery already in place that can be usurped.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my "national army" may look a lot more like a network of regional police forces in AC land. When I said "looks like" I didn't necessarily mean organized like and funded like a state defense force. I guess I just mean that when other states exist that a network of associated private enterprises would probably need to sell a territorial defense product. I doubt that each citizen would choose to fortify their own homes and arm their families in case of foreign invasion.

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, even if an AC area were taken over by surrounding states this isn't really an argument against ACism. Lots of states get taken over by states all the time. If somebody wants to oppress you, and they're a lot more powerful than you, it's going to be difficult to resist oppression whether your an anarchist, a statist, a rhinoceros, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that if other states existed around you, there will always be forces "more powerful" than you if you don't have a form of territorial defense. Even if it's really expensive to conquer a decentralized territory, if states exists they can always pass on the exhorbitant costs to their tax payers.

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if this is true. It's pretty clear from current military action, not to mention ample historical precedent, that decentralized regions are much harder to invade and control than centralized areas with lots of government machinery already in place that can be usurped. An AC area that had a similar average wealth, or even significantly lower (look at Iraq/Vietnam), to the invading country would likely be extremely difficult to hold.

[/ QUOTE ]
You 're right, but the problem would not necessarly be an invasion of the whole territory, but a selective appropritation of ressources by neighbouring states.
Maybe Russia would reclaim Alska and his petrol bacK.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Anarcho-capitalism cannot 'work'. Anarcho-capitalism cannot do anything because it is not an actor. Only people can act. <font color="red">"when you don't have an answer to the obvious intent of the question, resort to semantics." [i]Nielson's School of Debate, Avoidance Tactics 101[i] </font>

2. A stateless society is possible without the abolition of all states. It would thus be a stateless area. I don't see why you would think this would not be possible. For all we know, there are stateless societies all over the universe. <font color="red"> good thing you picked the universe, because we know there aren't any on earth involving humans </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. The only real worry would be that states out there would be in a position to profitably charge their citizens for a war with your territory, so the AC land would need a territorial defense force that would act like a national army.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if this is true. It's pretty clear from current military action, not to mention ample historical precedent, that decentralized regions are much harder to invade and control than centralized areas with lots of government machinery already in place that can be usurped. An AC area that had a similar average wealth, or even significantly lower (look at Iraq/Vietnam), to the invading country would likely be extremely difficult to hold. <font color="red"> who needs to "hold" it. Interpret the question as being about territory, and kill the decentralied ACers </font>

That being said, even if an AC area were taken over by surrounding states this isn't really an argument against ACism. Lots of states get taken over by states all the time. If somebody wants to oppress you, and they're a lot more powerful than you, it's going to be difficult to resist oppression whether your an anarchist, a statist, a rhinoceros, whatever. <font color="red">this line is repeated often, but it doesnt hold water. ACers insist that the status quo could be made better. If it can be made better, show some areas where AC can make it better, and that the areas that it is better outweigh the areas where it is worse. If there are none better, then why bother? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]