Is this the best there is? These are all the same arguments I have seen here. I only made it to page 38 out of 140+, but I cannot read anymore it's childish.
So you demand answers after admitting you won't read the subject matter. Typical.
I do not know if it is the best there is, I doubt it in fact... It's just the one addressing this subject that I have read. Check out the library at Mises.org for more.
He states that a country will only invade another country to take over as the new tax collector. Really? Ever heard of natural resources?
He did not use the word Only. In fact that was like the second or third example in a long string of examples, the last one being where some other country irrationally wanted to barge in and burn all our books...
Since he didn't address natural resources directly, I'll fill in the blank for you: If they wanted Jimmy Bob's gold mine in the middle of an anarchy-filled land, then at the very least they'd have to conquer and hold the Mine itself and the supply line into and back from the mine to their territory.
This may sound easy to you, but as he says over and over, they don't have to just defeat 1 army on 1 day. For them to hold that mine and supply line would mean that they have to constantly keep guard along the whole route for Guerrilla forces trying to sabotage/stop/otherwise make it not worth their while.
Japan didn't invade the mainland US because they didn't want to face the guns in the hands of the rural population... And that was back in 1940's america when we didn't have an automatic weapon in every single home.
Guerrilla warfare. It's what scares off countries more than anything else.
He claims Joe will not take over Bob's (names changed because I forget) farm in lieu of developing his own because "imagine if [Bob's] farm was staffed with ex-military fully armed and trained. Really? What military would that be? Some private militia developed through Anarchy? I think the CO of that militia may just take over Bob's farm himself and empower his workers (ex-soldiers) or more likely enslave some people to work the farm for them.
He's not talking about a militia at all. You're still thinking of the land as having a government on it. It won't.
I guess this part is hard for some people to conceive. It's about distributing things like resources and guns completely. Under a government, (and therefore the only way you've ever seen it) the distribution of guns is at the front line or the border or at least at the army base... But it's clumped together where it can do the most damage to a similar, opposing army.
Under anarchy, the resistance is every. single. household. You might think "Sure, a whole army against a single household? It'll be a slaughter." -And it would be for the unfortunate households near the attacker's border, for sure.
But think about how many households there are! Each one is going to have some or all family members with a gun hiding behind a tree and wear down the enemy a little bit more. Over the time it takes to go attack each individual household in such a place, their army is TOAST. They'll be spread way to thin and it'll take years to travel over all that land at all.
The masses need leadership and guidance. There is no conceivable situation where the "masses" (and hopefully everyone understands what I mean by this) will be able to protect themselves.
The stupid shits on welfare today? Sure. They do need guidance.
-But I'm not in the business of giving those fools what they want.
Anarchy gives everyone who can handle it some ACTUAL freedom. I'm sorry that concept scares you so. Just remember, it's only so scary because every government that ever existed tried very hard to make it seem that way. You're thinking with millenia of Propaganda about this in your head.
The author states that we can pay to build a military and he has this ridiculous example of independent audits with a reward to be awarded if anything is found to be "awry". Yeah, that will work..... at least until the private military is large enough to abolish the audit agency. He claims the economic incentive will not be there - he assumes that each private citizen will have full knowledge of every situation.
Sounds to me like you are the one making the assumptions. Have patience.
We live in a very complex society. There is no single person that can live their lives pursuing due diligence on every minute decision. You will say they can outsource it, but to whom? More due diligence. In this complex world each individual wil be pursuing passionately there chosen productive activity but they will be bogged down in due diligence. So much so that the due diligence organizations themselves will need due diligence organizations and so on and so on - what happens when they decide to collaborate and manipulate on behalf of those they are watching?
It's not that bad man! Here, let me ease your panic a bit...
First of all, have you ever read Consumer Reports? Angies list? Any other consumer ratings magazine or website? Those ALREADY DO the due diligence you're afraid of, and we aren't even living in an anarchy here. Imagine that. It is very easy to imagine that there will be more and more useful ones made for such a world. They'll be competing against each other in the free market, and that is the key that will keep them from "conspiring" with each other to lie to or scheme customers.
Secondly, at least now that we live in the computer age, Micro-tasking is getting really easy. So what if you have to make 50 different payments to fifty different services each and every month? You don't have to INITIATE them all at the same time, you'd only put one at a time in your auto-billpay at your bank's website when you need it.
Doing due diligence on the fly is getting easy as pie too. My android phone is all I need to know if I'm getting the best price for a product when I see it in the store. It seems like every time I buy something bigger than the milk in person, I've got my phone out reading an amazon review or something about it before I purchase.
This is by no means a concerning problem to the whole model of anarchy. I'm not sure it was so a century ago, either.
On and on and on - the implementation of Anarchy is not possible.
Did you know that the Nords (Especially Svalbard) lived in a complete anarchy for hundreds of years? Are you saying you can't handle doing something that they lived for centuries?
The little chart that keeps appearing ITT is not correct. People will move to moderate Libertarianism and then decide to settle somewhere short of it - this are all ideas I explored when I was young, as most of you are still.
You mean people who have no imagination or are still brainwashed by the state? Yeah, no argument there.
The chart represents how people naturally get to anarchy. It's the way all of us on here who claim to be anarchists got there, I'm pretty sure. The author nor I make any claims that it isn't possible to stray off course. In your case it would seem to me because there is a mental image in your head of how land is settled and distributed that is conflicting with an unorganized land in anarchy.
The state tried very hard to put that image in your head. Looks like they did quite a good job.
Now use reason to remove it.
