/liberty/ - Liberty

>>82513

>A military inherently demands order and structure which is not voluntary

A certain order, yes. There is no saying that it must be organized exactly the way it is now. Certain troops and armies have more leeway than others. You can't have peasants running all around the battlefield, but you really don't have to go all the way like the Prussians did, not always.

That said, whatever order you need, you can achieve voluntarily. Just have a volunteer army. Anarchocapitalism means no one is bound by any oath he didn't take or contract he didn't sign, but if he does take an oath and does sign a contract, that's a different thing.

>fighting a war is mostly about pre-emptively killing someone before they have the chance to kill you.

You don't have to wait for someone to actually shoot you before you can defend yourself. If he makes sophisticated plans to kill you and steal your land and wife, then you can do whatever it takes to defuse the situation, including killing him, if that is necessary. His bad if he questions your right to live. The positive law, the one we live under, doesn't allow pre-emptive self-defense, because that is challenging the monopoly of force of the state and its ability to defend you. Self-defense is supposed to be the ultima ratio.

>Not to mention that if an invasion is prevented, all the enemy has to do is lay down his arms and NAP would prevent the soldiers of anarchy from finishing them off. Ergo the state can always pull back, rebuild, attack again.

Not necessarily. If you think they will come back from their surrender, you can take them prisoner to prevent them from fighting again. And if they caused damages and killed people, you can punish them for that.

>My question is: How can, say, a continent under anarchy hope to defend itself against a continent under state control?

Same way a state would. The initial mobilization and coordination might be harder, as the military would likely be more decentralized, and it would have fewer relative resources to command, as war socialism and conscription would not be an option. However, with a free territory under its control, it could command more absolute resources. Compare South Korea with North Korea. The North is far more militarized, and yet the South is more advanced, has much better equipment, and would likely defeat it in a conventional fight. That's because the South has the stronger economy, and doesn't have to mobilize as many resources in relative terms to have more in absolute terms.

Whether the state or the anarchist territory would win would depend on a lot of historical accidents and contingencies. The anarchist territory might be defeated quickly if the offensive side of the war is the stronger one, as it was in World War II, when Hitler steamrolled everyone with his Blitzkrieg. (Which, by the way, was a way of compensating for his shitty equipment; France had twice the number of tanks as Germany.) If it's a war that can be won with high-tech equipment (as the US pretends every modern war is), then Ancapistan will surely prevail. All we can say is, we'd have a fighting chance, and a pretty good one. That we'd win, we cannot say. War follows few constant laws.

>>82522

If people are free to run away from combat, it's basically not a military.

For NAP I'm talking right on the battlefield, where you often have to shoot enemy soldiers in the back despite them showing no aggression to you directly. For all you know he could be a scared boy who might drop his gun and run away at the sight of you, but you have to kill him without any provocation because that's just how war is done.

>If you think they will come back from their surrender, you can take them prisoner to prevent them from fighting again.

That kind of pushes NAP right into the domain of subjective belief, and completely breaks down the concept. A paranoid schizo might believe everyone is out to get them, and kill a bunch of people, which would be legal under this "subjective" definition of NAP.

>Compare South Korea with North Korea. The North is far more militarized, and yet the South is more advanced, has much better equipment, and would likely defeat it in a conventional fight.

Actually that's a great example of what I'm talking about, North Korea has half the people yet in a 1 vs 1 fight I would put my money on the guys with the nukes. There is no conceivable way South Korea could invade North Korea and win, yet North Korea can invade South Korea and at least kill twice as many people than they lose.

>>82531

>Joining the army MUST be voluntary and paying for it must be voluntary too

>agreeing to a contract that you consent to doing whatever it is your superiors tell you to do.

Yeah but in that situation no one would join the military, people would just sell their property and run.

>>82551

>For NAP I'm talking right on the battlefield, where you often have to shoot enemy soldiers in the back despite them showing no aggression to you directly. For all you know he could be a scared boy who might drop his gun and run away at the sight of you, but you have to kill him without any provocation because that's just how war is done.

The provocation is him being on the battlefield and identifiable as an enemy. If he changes his mind about fighting, then that's a tragedy, but not one that you as the shooter are responsible for. It was his responsibility for metaphorically running at you with a knife.

>That kind of pushes NAP right into the domain of subjective belief, and completely breaks down the concept. A paranoid schizo might believe everyone is out to get them, and kill a bunch of people, which would be legal under this "subjective" definition of NAP.

That charge can be made against every rule of morality, really. Including our present rules of conduct, or any rule regarding arrest. In many states, citizens can do arrests, often based on their prerogative, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to deal with an obviously unjust or unreasonable arrest, even if the citizen is acting in good faith. Same with the NAP. If you're schizophrenic and think you must totally massacre the enemy army, no one has to put up with it. You may still do it, if no one stops you, but that is also true of any other rule. Ancaps don't presume their principles would be followed by everyone perfectly, just as no other law was ever followed perfectly.

>Actually that's a great example of what I'm talking about, North Korea has half the people yet in a 1 vs 1 fight I would put my money on the guys with the nukes. There is no conceivable way South Korea could invade North Korea and win, yet North Korea can invade South Korea and at least kill twice as many people than they lose.

That's one of these historical contingencies I mean. Right now, there is no decent way to counter nukes. In twenty years, there may be another game changer, say a satellite that fires beams that can pierce the ocean, and track submarines. Then a nation that is not willing to start a democide may win a nuclear exchange. Or cyborg soldiers, then a more industrialized nation will be far more effective. The pendulum swings a different way every time.

>>82551

>For NAP I'm talking right on the battlefield, where you often have to shoot enemy soldiers in the back despite them showing no aggression to you directly. For all you know he could be a scared boy who might drop his gun and run away at the sight of you, but you have to kill him without any provocation because that's just how war is done.

That's hardly how "war is done", that's just how war is done right now. Wars between mercenary armies in the Renaissance, for instance, were much more civilized and comparatively less bloodless–when one side became aware that they were in a tactically hopeless situation they would immediately surrender or withdraw, making war much more about strategy and moving men around instead of bloody, excessive brutality.

>>82551

>Yeah but in that situation no one would join the military, people would just sell their property and run.

Well, we have volunteers for ideological reasons even now. These would not just cease to exist. Why would it? Do you care less about your homeland because there is no congress and president in charge? Doubtful.

Money is another motivation. There are and always have been mercenaries. You have stupid teenagers surfing on cars and trams, and stupid adults getting into knife fights with Albanians. Then you have the genuinely courageous people who would've been adventurers in older times. You can always find warriors for hire. How many, and at what cost, that is another question, but it doesn't depend on the political and economic system so much as on where you implement it.

>A military inherently demands order and structure

See, we part ways here.

>>82613

Wait, are we not compassionate and too autistic, or are we too moralizing now? Mixed signals.

>>82513

>Continents

That's not how it works, faggot.

Small military corps operate pretty damn efficiently, honestly.

>>82616

You can't please everybody.

>>82616

Speaking from position of moral relativism would be fine. No one has to be compassionate, as the world might be a nicer place if people forced others to do anyhing only for their own gain.

>>82610

Yeah I'll admit anarchy can exist among GMO or cyborg humans engineered to handle it.

>>82612

To care about a homeland there has to be a homeland, with at least borders or people I can call my own and depend on to care for me as I care for them. It's basic human tribal instinct, which I don't see this happening in pure anarchy.

As for mercenaries, this >>82611 guy just perfectly described why mercenary armies can't be relied on. They cost more than a conscript army in general, and they're unwilling to fight to the death to attain a goal. If two armies of equal size meet on the battlefield, a $50 mil army of mercenaries and a $10 mil army of conscripts forced to win or get shot by their superiors, guess who loses?

The anarchist region would have to entice and hire at many times per-soldier cost, an army with numerical superiority at least 3:1 to the enemy if your mercenaries aren't just going to spontaneously run away.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR638.pdf

This means for every single war the region under anarchy is at a ridiculous disadvantage, which is why I made this thread.

>>82614

You can part ways all you want, I dare you to find me a combat manual that doesn't advise order or structure. At least the guys bringing up mercenaries admit to that…

>>82638

>mercenaries

Mercenaries are always less willing to die for their cause, because their cause is money, and you can't spend money if you're dead. There is the problem of the enemy providing incentive for them to fuck off as well. If a mercenary army faces a 1:1 enemy army willing to die for its cause, the mercenaries will leave. If the mercenary army faces 2:1 enemy army willing to die for its cause, and the enemy army provides them with a competing bid to vacate the premises, they will still leave. You end up being stuck in a bidding war with a state that can force money out of its own people, all the meanwhile your own countryside is being ravaged by the enemys army which isn't motivated by money.

>volunteers

You know the assumption you're making is that a state has no volunteers whatsoever, or even dumber assumption that they would have fewer volunteers. The state has volunteers as well and because of propaganda and cradle to grave programming they can have a lot more per-capita volunteers than anarchists… the forced conscripts and drafts are just a many times larger supplement to the volunteers. All an anarchy has is volunteers, and because each person has to be convinced individually, per capita lower numbers of volunteers. Ergo a force of anarchists will always be massively outnumbered, 10:1 isn't even an extreme suggestion.

>I'm just gonna keep asserting that voluntary militias can't have hierarchy or structure!

I'm not asserting, I am explaining how and why that is true. Military courts are generally harsher than civilian courts for a reason, in order to maintain discipline there have to be harsh punishment up to and including execution for treason and cowardice. If you have an all-volunteer force, how long before your forces go MIA because of punitive and nonjudicial punishments? How long before they go MIA or traitor because you had to execute their friends for cowardice?

>The giant welfare check for defense companies that is the national army will surely be cheaper than a competitive market!

Problem with raising volunteer armies in peacetime is that it takes time to train someone to be a soldier, and if you're being invaded instead of invading (anarchists can only be invaded) that means you have zero time to raise, train, or buy an army of your own. This is why states have standing armies, despite the huge expense.

>>82643

You do not have to hire every one of mercenaries individually, and if not for the government they would find a niche, even though it might be not as extreme. There is an option of a mercenary compan(y/ies), which trains, arms and rents its soldiers, taking the place which now holds the government. Still, for something more reliable a regular army would be more suitable, but there are private firms(the ones that also deal with alarms) that outperform, say, shop guards, as they barely get ant training. Also, nothing stops a weapon manufacturing company have a private army that might also work as mercenaries in time free from active confrontation, the thing which government armies might also be doing if it was not about almost universal practice of monopolizing violence and isolation of national jurisdictions from each other.

>>82643

>training soldiers

lol

>>82649

I don't think fighting a war with shop guards is a good strategy.

>>82652

Or untrained volunteers.

Keep in mind folks it's not just the personnel, there's also the aircraft, tanks, ships, and people trained to serve and maintain them.

>>82637

>To care about a homeland there has to be a homeland, with at least borders

>You're not my mommy because there isn't some magical line which doesn't actually exist.

Doesn't this suggest to you that maybe you're way too blinking nuts to have the foundation to even be having this conversation?

>You can part ways all you want, I dare you to find me a combat manual that doesn't advise order or structure.

I mean, wargames 2002 established that a bunch of lone wolves on fishing boats will always kick the ass of a structured, heavily-equipped military, and the reason Switzerland has a low invasion rate does NOT in fact involve the terrible fear that they'll give marching in parade and tailoring more flourishes to the uniform as a response to attack… but fuck that, you have a conclusion you WANT to be true, because of your love for BDSM lifestyleism, so…

The most dangerous thing in war is a single person with no command structure fucking things up behind lines. Anarchy has a 100% population rate of this.

>>82713

We aren't talking about someone attacking my mother, and then me doing to war. We are talking about someone attacking a person I've never met in some anarchic island in the middle of the ocean, and whether or not I jump to their defense.

>I mean, wargames 2002 established that a bunch of lone wolves on fishing boats

Actually if you read that military exercise you would have noticed the attack was highly organized and orchestrated to strike at the same time, or else it would have no effect on carried fleet defenses.

>>82637

>To care about a homeland there has to be a homeland, with at least borders or people I can call my own and depend on to care for me as I care for them.

So you cannot love your people unless there is some magical line on a map? If someone drew another line on the map splitting your country in half, would you not also see the people in the other half as your own anyway? Are Danes, Swedes and Norwegians not the same people despite living in different states?

>They cost more than a conscript army in general,

>under capitalism, everything is automatically more expensive!

You are completely ignorant of economics and how competition works to lower prices. Your conscript army will still be paid for through taxes or some other form of theft, the wealth to sustain it isn't magically created out of thin air you know.

>>82720

Jesus Christ do you need a flowchart!

Imagine whatever city you live in is under Anarchy.

Imagine a city on the other side of a continent also being under Anarchy.

You know no one there, no one there knows you, your cities barely trade.

Imagine someone attacking that other city.

Given the fact that you're both under Anarchy, is that enough motivation to help them!?

>under capitalism, everything is automatically more expensive!

Slaves cost less than employees, I'm not saying slavery is better just cheaper!

>>82716

Also, I don't think you know what a conscript army is. The US military, which isn't some unorganized rag-tag gang, is not a conscript army since the soldiers get paid for their service there which technically makes them mercenaries, it's not privatized either but it's not conscript. A "conscript" is someone who enlists by force, ie. they give a fuck about your homeland as much as someone who is being paid to fight for it, probably even less since they are doing it for free. And you, the guy that wants people to enlist by force, probably don't give a fuck about your homeland either since you are forcing others to take on responsibilities which you wouldn't want to take on yourself.

>>82724

You completely ignored what's written in my post because you've got nothing clever to say. Instead you come up with a silly example like life is our first day after spawning on a new planet

>Given the fact that you're both under Anarchy, is that enough motivation to help them!?

Yes it is, there were lots of volunteers in the recent conflict in Donbass.

>Slaves cost less than employees, I'm not saying slavery is better just cheaper!

You're as short-sighted as leftypol, rounding up common people like cattle and forcing them to fight is really ineffective compared to professionals who had experience, or at least the will to go to battle. It's as simple as that.

>>82726

>The US military, which isn't some unorganized rag-tag gang, is not a conscript army

But it does have the draft in cases of emergency, and does break NAP in regulations.

>>82731

I'm ignoring your post because you strawmanned mine and wrote a non sequitur reply. Why would I justify your strawman argument by responding to it.

>Yes it is, there were lots of volunteers in the recent conflict in Donbass.

Yeah because they are drawn by a shared nationality, Russians are drawn to the Russian cause. Not because the level of state interference in Donbass appeals to them.

>forcing them to fight is really ineffective compared to professionals who had experience,

First of all it's not always forcing them to fight, like I said a state is likely to have more volunteers than an anarchy, and I explained why that happens. Second of all, its not a lack of payment, just an underpayment compared to a pure mercenary outfit. Third of all the fact that they're a standing army means they can practice a lot more and take it a lot more seriously than an anarchic volunteer army. Fourth, the belief that draft, conscription, impressment produces inferior soldiers is a fairy tale, a person doesn't lose IQ points when they get drafted. WWII shows the main thing that matters is numbers and commitment. The part of my argument you're objecting to is the one which questions the commitment of anarchists to defend their homeland which doesn't exist.

>>82754

>anarchists don't want to defend their homeland

>but people who are FORCED to defend their homeland do want to defend their homeland

Ok, this is where I understand there's no point trying to prove anything to you, if even a child can understand simple shit like what we're explaining to you then you're a lost cause.

>>82758

Anarchists don't want to defend their homeland because they don't have a homeland. They have property that can be liquidated.

And for what, the fourth time I'm saying this, a state purposely cultivates a feeling of loyalty to it from cradle to grave. It's a huge part of how they maintain their monopoly, it isn't all gunpoint diplomacy and naked force.

>We aren't talking about someone attacking my mother, and then me doing to war.

Maybe you should be.

>We are talking about someone attacking a person I've never met in some anarchic island in the middle of the ocean, and whether or not I jump to their defense.

Are… are you on that island?

>Actually if you read that military exercise you would have noticed

…I'm familiar with the anti-SIGINT measures.

Doesn't change the fact that a disorganized suicide bomber is way, way more potent, militarily, than two parties marching (usually, senselessly) towards each other in brightly colored uniforms. What you are asking for is PARADE, not military considerations.

>>82790

>Are… are you on that island?

No.

Jesus Christ.

> two parties marching (usually, senselessly) towards each other in brightly colored uniforms

That hasn't been warfare for two centuries. And the only reason it was in the first place is that A) marching in formation is the best way to utilize musket firearms, and B) bright uniforms help commanders see his troops so he can order them about properly.

Look you're clearly not familiar with warfare but I expect at least some familiarity with anarchy given where we are and what we're doing.

>>82658

You got me wrong. I showed that shop guards and alarm agents already do their job of providing immediate force to those who pay, so, on a greater scale they ARE mercenaries, working for someone who pays them. It is just for the state that does not allow bigger actors to appear, but mercenaries do exist even today, even though on a smaller scale. No one says they will go to war, the same way a policeman would neither, i'm just saying it is possible in theory, as these is no law or rule for mercenaries not to exist.

>>82731

Recent conflict in donbass is just an action of russian government, these "volunteers" are as independent as regular army, who they mostly are, which is proved by their weapon supplies which cannot ever be acquired by civilians. If you are not aware of russian political shaenanigans, better not to use that nest of vipers as an example, as any info and fact is compromised and inverted multiple times. If you are doing this for the purpose of propaganda then noone cares about donbass here and you should search for a more russian resource to earn your money.

>>82796

Ah I see, so you propose keeping a large mercenary force on standby as "guards" in any region under anarchy?

>>82798

Every adult male in Ukraine has been through military training, the rebel forces formed around TO (territorial defense) units much like the national guard, and they seized very large military caches. Most of the military bases, caches, and equipment was close to the border with Russia, because Ukraine thought that's where the threat was, instead of internally.

>russian resource to earn your money

Dude they can barely feed their own people.

>>82551

North Korea's nuclear weapons is a good reason to be skeptical about their ability to fight a war. They would be useful against a large group gathered in one place away from anything important, such as their own. Nuclear weapons are useful for deterring an attacker, but if the he does it anyway they become useless.

>>82803

>Dude they can barely feed their own people.

I was saying about paid comments and reviews which are funded by russian government for a few years already. Google "savushkino" for example.

Well, russia is the main voice in the opposition to the ukraine, it even showed request and hailed people who went to fight to donbass on official tv when people have yet cared.

>>82798

>>82827

In English, you spell the names of countries with a capital letter. And this is a much more civilized board than that leftist shithole /po/, so you might want to come up with better arguments than claiming everyone is a shill paid to do propaganda, especially since I didn't say anything in my post in support of Russia.

Yes, there are volunteers in Donbass and especially on the Ukrainian side and although the Russians are mostly all specnaz, they also get a share of turbo vatniks and western Slavaboos coming in to help them out. That's just a fucking fact.

>>82827

>paid comments and reviews

NATO has sixty times larger budget for these things, every time you make the accusation that there's a Russian shill somewhere, you're implying an order of magnitude more Western shills.

>>82822

Or they can nuke Seoul and chem/bio weapon a bunch of other cities before a conventional invasion.

>>82832

I'll call any of your favorite statist shithole the way i want. i'm not claiming that you have to do anything with paid opinions, just advised if you did.

I fucking live in russia, and every time donbass is mentioned it is used to create some kind of political shitshow, so excuse me if you did not.

The fact that there are very active groups pushing specific opinions backed by the russian government is not some kind of speculation, but is very clear, at least in russian part of internet, you can read for it here, or google more yourself https://meduza.io/en/feature/2018/03/26/there-s-a-good-chance-that-pro-kremlin-bots-are-trying-to-vote-down-footage-of-the-kemerovo-fire-and-shift-blame-away-from-state-officials (simply 1st link in ddg)

>>82838

Not really, russian politics is very specific it terms of blatant lies, hipocrisy and passive acceptance of will of authority, so the methods can really differ. For example, pro-government public protests standing right near other protesters being beaten by police in not an uncommon sight, though i know a lot less about European and US political situation, so similar stuff might be happening in there.

>>82841

>though i know a lot less about European and US political situation

Fucking clearly.

>>82832

Also, i have nothing to do with any of pols, or any collectivist ideology,if that is the case, so your insult missed the target.

>>82842

What did you mean by that? If there is, could you give some examples? I've heard of some protests in US, mostly about sjw and other socialist stuff, but other that "literally hiler fascist rapist trump" there were no news about opressing them. There were some memes from UK involving cops and pepper sprays, but not much else, really.

>>82768

you cant liquidate property thats being invaded, who the fuck would buy it?

>>82847

I'm sure the invader would pay a few bucks to save the lives of a few men.

>>82845

Sorry then, my mistake, i have been trying to distance from russian politics for some time, generally i do not really care, it is just that donbass is very specific topic where there hs been speculation on literally everything, so i considered it a sign.

I stay away from any russian resources today, so you missed it, and i know these protesters are paid, i guess i was not clear enough.

>>82847

This.

>>82768

>Anarchists don't want to defend their homeland because they don't have a homeland.

What a load of bullshit. Honestly, it's like you don't know the difference between a nation and a state or you actually care about the government more than you care about the well-being of your people. Anarchists (I don't know which anarchists you're talking about so I'll assume you mean anarcho-capitalists) don't specifically reject their own people, they simply rejected that there should be a parasitic government to leech off of them.

>a state purposely cultivates a feeling of loyalty to it from cradle to grave

You even said it yourself. The state cultivates a loyalty to ITSELF, not to a nation and it's people, this is known as patriotism - NOT nationalism. In patriotism you still love your government despite it being the most anti-nationalist anti-citizen thing in the world and in nationalism you love your people no matter what government is in power.

Also, to completely btfo your argument about anarchists jumping ship when shit get's tough - in a society where private property is respected, like, respected to the point where you can build your house on your own land and expect your children and their children to inherit it for ages to come, you don't just leave everything behind when shit gets tough, maybe you do in a shithole like Syria where nobody had any property to begin with, but in a country like Japan where people have been living on a plot of land for centuries, where they even bury their dead in their own backyards, you don't just fucking leave, you will have something precious and some of your own to protect, you will want to fight because you will be fighting for yourself with your own guns, not for some fucking dictator faggot.

>>82849

Yeah, Donbass is a pretty radioactive topic, maybe I should have pointed out some better examples to reduce confusion.

>>82793

>Are… are you on that island?

>No.

Then I fail to see why giving a fuck is a valuable thing.

Much harm has come from caring about how people conduct their lives on the far side of the planet. Not much good.

>marching in formation is the best way to utilize musket firearms

Then the United States is OBVIOUSLY still a British colony, because you dictate the final word on military superiority.

The strength of anarchism is that waging totalicide against heavily armed, entrenched foes on their own home terrain is a very difficult method of warfare with few rewards. You, on the other hand, are so blinkered by ideology that you just declared Britain the winner of the US revolutionary war, because you decree that standing in a brightly colored uniform in a field is the "most efficient" way, and directing sniper fire from the woods against people standing in an open meadow in brightly-colored uniforms is "totally not efficient at all."

The british, and others, lost entirely because of believing a heaping of ideology for no reason, just like you. History is not a good argument for the military effectiveness of anything you propose.

>>82871

>revolutionary war

Happened around the time the first rifled weapons were entering service, which allowed the kind of accuracy that didn't depend on massed fire. And the British lost because they were outnumbered and had to maintain supply lines over a fucking ocean in the age of sail. It was a bloody war on both sides, the British lost 66% of their troops, the Americans lost 79%, the problem is the British knew the Americans could easily replace every dead guy.

You really shouldn't talk about military history if you don't know it much….

>Are… are you on that island?

>No.

>Then I fail to see why giving a fuck is a valuable thing.

>State attacks anarchic Island, conquers it, you do nothing because it isn't your problem

>State attacks a closer anarchic Island, conquers it, you do nothing because it isn't your problem

>State attacks a distant city, conquers it, you do nothing because it isn't your problem

>State attacks a closer city, conquers it, you do nothing because it isn't your problem

>State attacks a neighboring city, conquers it, you do nothing because it isn't your problem

>State attacks all neighboring cities, conquers them, you do nothing because it isn't your problem

>State now surrounds you completely, no one can come to your aid

Aaaaaand that's the whole point of about a dozen posts discussing the concept of an anarchic nationalism..

At every point in this step the state can commit 100% of the resources of its territory to each individual attack, whereas at best the anarchic region is going to commit a small percentage while the majority either don't care or are smart enough to run. Humans simply don't risk the lives of their family so they can help an absolute stranger, it just isn't in our genetic makeup, it's antithetical to evolution. This is called the military problem, >>82513 and ties into the information problem, the resource problem, and the problem of human nature.

Maybe one day someone will genetically engineer a perfect anarchist… but that hasn't happened yet.

>>82888

>the concept of an anarchic nationalism..

Try for a retarded concept, end up a retard.

Most of the "closer" ones fall under direct self-defense, and your "human nature" argument is historically debunked.

>>82891

Going to explain how, or just going to make proclamations?

>>82888

Did you read what i said in >>82796 ?

The whole fucking point of anarchism is that you do not have to "unite", or do other forms of central planning in order to exist and progress. Yet you try pulling your nationalism, once again creating a concept for people to worship. Go fucking back to pol, as anarcho-nationalism is as stupid thing as ancom, both being contradictory collectivist ideology at core, either fading away over time because of worthlessness of the concepts they worship, or becoming another socialist state built around the idea, taking any means to support it.

>>82909

>you do not have to "unite"

Enjoy getting out competed by those that can. What do you think a corporation is? Its an executive structure under the command of the owner.

>>82917

"Do not have to" does not mean will not. I did not say it is not beneficial. What i was saying is that ot allows you to exist without belonging to that corp(or government). It is viewed beneficial as that "unity" won't be able to seize your resources without direct confrontation, which, you know is very useful as you do not have to worry about being "out competed" if you have nothing to create that competition.

>>82917

A corporation actually doesn't have a single owner, the CEO is just an officer whose job is to execute the wishes of the board of governors. The "owner" of a corporation are the shareholders.

>>82909

>you do not have to "unite", or do other forms of central planning in order to exist and progress.

Yeah except I've been busy poking holes in this hypothesis throughout the thread, it's just wrong. Not having a highly structured standing army means losing a military confrontation. Period.

>collectivist

There is no such thing as a single individualist unitary soldier.

>>82930

I was not talking about war. You know, not everything in life is about conquer or be conquered.

>Not having a highly structured standing army means losing a military

Yes, that is why a private company might find beneficial to have its own private military force, which it might rent when it is not in action. This is example of how mercenaries could emerge even if no specialized corps doings this work would appear, which is very unlikely.

>>82930

>There is no such thing as a single individualist unitary soldier.

Well, by collectivist i meant a devoted believer ready and willing to spread its faith in an entity, precisely in here - nationalism. A mercenary, or any paid actor fits the case just fine.

>>82930

>A corporation actually doesn't have a single owner,

That is an idiotic incorrect statement. If you are going to be pedantic about something at least do it correctly. A corporation MAY have more than one owner.

>>82934

>Yes, that is why a private company might find beneficial to have its own private military force, which it might rent when it is not in action.

Finally! Someone tackles the fucking problem without screeching like an autistic harpy at me. Yes if the was some way to obligate all private companies to pool their mercenary resources and defend fellow anarchists, it could work. Problem word is "obligate", it's not going to work if only some companies do it, since it leads to the military problem of piecemeal conquest described here >>82888

>>82942

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/incorporate.asp

>Incorporation is the legal process used to form a corporate entity or company. A corporation is a separate legal entity from its owners, with its own rights and obligations.

>>82967

Are you seriously using the fact that this non legal document site used the word "owners" as a retort.

>>82967

It can easily be achieved without forcing a company to do such thing, as if you have your own military, then you might also rent it, at least partially to reduce their cost, so such private conractors could do that, if not security agencies that act during peaceful time, though latter could be the ones who hire them in time of need.

>>82970

Yes but to rent it, someone actually has to want to pay for it. And if someone is attacking your neighbor 200 miles away, you might not be 100% motivated to want to pay for it… I get the initial premise, it just needs to be drawn over the hump described in greentext here >>82888

>>82975

Well, there is extremely likely to be private property protection companies, so if they fail, other jurisdictions might intervene, for example, contracts do not have to be all created and signed and supervised in one, so if a city fails then the companies will likely be sued in another place, where they decide to flee, as choosing all court in case of such a situation in contract to be in one place you are supposed to be protected in would be a pretty bad idea.

>>82978

They, in turn might go for insurance for such a case so they find money to hire armies(from local industry, for example, in which case they might get a discount), even if they did not have such a fund themselves.

>>82978

Fighting a court battle in the middle of an invasion to convince mercenaries to fight sounds kind of inefficient.

>>82985

You do not have to convince anyone. What i said was that these guard agencies have to do fighting or else they would be sued and likely to lose everything afterwards, they need to do resource management to not fail, not you.

>>82990

They're not likely to be sued if the plaintiffs get genocided. Also even so, a PMC might consider the cost of a trial more acceptable than the cost of fighting a superior foe.

>>82994

You would probably want to move out of the war zone for this very reason. Even of they fail, you might get some money back as your property got destroyed, above the normal compensation.

>lso even so, a PMC might consider the cost of a trial more acceptable than the cost of fighting a superior foe.

Yeah, but remember, there is likely to be more than one of such agencies, so it is less likely to happen, as there are some benefits such as market share of the failed corp afterwards, so bigger investments are more reasonable.

>>83000

And even the simple loss of reputation might be fatal for such a company, so they have plenty of incentives to cooperate in their shared duty, even if some of them do flee.

>>82513

1. Pre-emptive strikes cause wars more often than not. by increasing support from otherwise indifferent citizens.

2. Defense of ancap societies would be the responsibility of those with the most incentive.

This would include insurance agencies and PSCs that don't want to lose business, and people living closer to the edge of cities that care about their own survival.

>>82975

What if the conqured territory was developing a technology you really like? What if only they had the ability to produce medicine that you or your loved one needs?

Say they had a website and delivered it to your geo-coordinates upon payment, but no longer. You would want vengence.

>>82513

>Muh organized military

Iraq is in a much stronger position against the US now than it was 15 years ago when it had an organized military. The purpose of a defensive militia isn't to defeat an invading army on the field of battle; it's to make the prospect of invasion so unappealing that no one bothers to try it. Look at Switzerland. Do you really think they could have taken on France or Germany at any point during the 20th century? And yet they were never invaded, because despite the fact that it's a tiny country, they were well trained, well equipped, and well positioned. The Swiss happen to have a very organized military, but that's not strictly required. The US is similarly well positioned with an ocean between them and any country with the capacity to invade, and already has more privately owned military hardware than any other country's military does. The last step is training, which the isn't there now but easily could be. Imagine that in the last few years before the American government was dissolved, the entire national defense budget was diverted to training the civilian populace to resist invasion.

Imagine Iraq with a population of 300 million and insurgents that could actually hit the broad side of a barn from 10 meters away. Who would want to invade that? Who would still want to invade it after a few years of massive losses and no progress? The "ancapistan could never possible happen because of foreign invasion" argument is simply wrong. Of course, ancapistan will never happen because of other reasons, but let's talk about how to solve those problems instead.

>>82754

>impressment produces inferior soldiers is a fairy tale

They were inferior, hence the employment of marines to discourage mutiny.

>>82917

>Enjoy getting out competed by those that can. What do you think a corporation is?

Corporations get BTFO all the time by competitors lacking unity with each other.