Freedomain Radio

The DRO society is a fantastic idea, but it has two major flaws that are probably addressable. I would bet that these have already been addressed, but if so then could someone address them for me? 

Firstly, they're vulnerable. Economically they can't be touched, but they present a juicy target for foreign powers. So, there needs to exist some form of deterrent for foreign organized violence. This is a problem because of the scale of firepower that a foreign state can bring to bear. Each citizen protecting their homes is simply not going to work. In order to win, a decently large and well-coordinated force is necessary. This is the easier of the two problems to resolve, I think. There might exist a military corporation that gets paid by DRO's subscribing to them, and those DRO's can then say that they offer military protection from agency XYZ. The difficulty is doing it in such a way that the system is impervious to the growth of a military-industrial complex. The aforementioned system is vulnerable to the military corporation then recycling their payment back into the DRO's and media companies and trying to institute further violence. Essentially, in order for a military corporation to work well it has to be large. But in order for it to be "virtuous" it has to be cut up into small, competing pieces. Any ideas?

The second problem is international relations. The other countries that do not have DRO's will expect to be able to converse with a state entity. The DRO society would respond by saying that they may chat with as many of the DRO councils/leaders/board of directors/however they choose to run themselves. This is harder. How do you carry on a meaningful international discussion with a state, if you're a DRO? You can only speak for a small constituency who subscribes to your DRO, and even that to a very limited extent. How would you sign treaties so as not to be attacked, etc. etc.?

How would you invade a country that did not have a government? There's no apparatus to take over...

as far as a direct military invasion of a piece of land, it's basically impossible given current technology (and maybe even impossible conceptually) if the given land encompasses probably somewhere around the size of Utah let's say. For argument's sake let's say when the USA goes down (all human systems eventually fail, we're not gods) nothing gets put into it's place except the public's undying respect for those gal dern FDR freedom fighters. and let's say Russia wanted a piece of the action. well they think it's going to be a cake walk, just set up a regional government and expand your empire. well they get here and discover...oh wait, they have policing companies here...didn't think of that, they have guns...oh and look, some former NRA members have gone to supporting the manufacture and maintenance of large artillery (we have to expect foreign agressors, and when we don't need to, then that's an excellent time to cut back on that stuff, so the public will understand the financial need)..oh dear this is worrisome...

 when you couple that with the fact that large-scale occupations of hostile territories always fails and that the populace are likely to have armed themselves as well, and the number of incindiaries that can be improvised given that no bans on goods were instituted previously, etc etc. you can see how occupation is troublesome (probably more so than with state-ran armies) basically in order to avoid a bloody massacre you would have to bomb every major city in the territory with a nuke or something to eliminate urban threats (which there would be aplenty) but then it would still make sense that there would be those artillery and policing forces in rural areas as well, and since all major cities are now blown up and now the aggressors are moving into the countryside, it's easy to guess what their frame of mind would be.

you should look into the anarchists in the spanish civil war, they were all-volunteer commanders were actually elected by their soldiers, and they ran their own campaigns. in the event of some sort of invasion the order will spontaneously arise to meet the challenge.

as far as negotiating, the DRO's or whatever system is popular in a particular territor, will have to set up some sort of inter-organizational body to coordinate it's activities (like with stefan's DRO contract rating, recognition as a valid DRO, etc) then it's logical that in order to solve whatever problem you have, you try to negotiate with the DRO's, maybe even contract their services somehow.

Right - and the only economic reason to invade a country is to take over the taxation apparatus - there would be none...

I probably don't understand how the government works well enough to know the obvious answer to this question, but it seems that a "terrorist group" or whatever you want to call them can just set up shop in Chicago, say, and just operate like a mafia. Harass small business owners into paying them protection money (taxes), etc. Then inevitably when the DRO comes knocking on the door of whatever building they operate out of... well... I guess the DRO would have extra funding from their customers so they'd have privately trained and well armed individuals... so the terrorists wouldn't have bigger or more guns... plus it WOULD probably be in every DRO in the area's best interest to cooperate to remove this threat...

 

dammit i guess i answered my own question.  

What it be plausible that the following could be reasons for attacking a free market DRO region?

1) Kings and States often attack the productive within their regions of influence.  The prevention of course is as mentioned that the citizenry would be free to do anything that made sense to them to provide defense. 

2) States may attack a region because they want it's resources.  This is dubious because if the region could be developed under free market conditions it seems as thought the cost of invasion and the maintenance of control would be more expensive than just - trading - with the region or investing in the region.

3) Another possible reason could be that the reverse negative publicity would harm nation state membership - so perhaps a nation state may be inclined to attack a DRO region in order to shut it down or destroy it's effectiveness to create new converts - but if we did find ourselves at a place in time where this became a viable way to organize societies the end would already be very near for nation states (we would hope).

If 3 doesn't seem plausible look at the very limited debate on the mainstream press, within the US, regarding going to war against Iran (It looks like an attack may be imminent).  I'm pretty convinced that the state can get away with almost anything because it's minions control so many levers of propaganda. 

 

 

I should also point to the movie "Black Hawk Down" for how people living in a stateless "society" would respond to what they perceived as aggressors.

Stefan Molyneux:

How would you invade a country that did not have a government? There's no apparatus to take over...

 

this is true - there is historical evidence for this - Iceland.. Iceland was anarchic right under the watchful eye of a neighbouring fascist state.. for hundreds of years.. however it was only able to be taken over by this state once taxes were imposed by churches, and the churches essentially became governments.. that provided the apparatus to be exploited..

http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f13l1.html - more info..

#3 is the most likely, but I'm not sure it really signifies the end.  As you mentioned, as long as the State has complete propaganda control (less so with the young on the internet), it has a great deal of totalitarian influence on its people.  I mean, at the moment, New Hampshire is not a great place to live in comparison to anywhere else, but it does have slightly less regulation in some ways.  However, you don't see people flocking.  Albeit it probably takes a sizable difference in freedoms to spur a migration (i.e. Mexico), but people tend to stay away.  The poor are lured to stay where they are through local welfare and transportation costs, and the rich aren't bothered by the high cost of living (for the most part).  Many rich people, particularly on the East coast, are part of a sort of "statist elite" who use the high taxes they pay to show off to their friends the way a 19th Century individual would use charity (think Barack Obama).

I think the only way for an anarcho-capitalist system to even have a chance is for like-minded individuals to set their sights on some town within a relatively peaceful state/province and by force of numbers (take the immigration flood from the south for example) to push the issue.  Get into those positions of power that allow you to do away with all the dead legal trappings, peacefully, and set the freedom machine into motion.  This, naturally, would raise the sticky issue of whether this was "forced" by any locals but It would be truth in action as opposed to lengthy philosophical discussions with fools who'll nod their pointy heads all the while feeding off of your wallet.  The locals might even thank you for it!  Pioneers of the past, who truly longed for their own piece of land and "peace", had to leave the all smothering embrace of their mother governments so I'm convinced that vast inconvenient distances are what make for freedom.  So someone get on the ball about that interplanetary wormhole project!

DrFix:

I think the only way for an anarcho-capitalist system to even have a chance is for like-minded individuals to set their sights on some town within a relatively peaceful state/province and by force of numbers (take the immigration flood from the south for example) to push the issue. 

In a relatively peaceful state/province what do you have to offer the people, the vested interests are still going to fight tooth and nail to prevent your success

Get into those positions of power that allow you to do away with all the dead legal trappings, peacefully, and set the freedom machine into motion.

You would need all the people in your effort to have total moral dedication otherwise you'd end up with the same situation. 

This, naturally, would raise the sticky issue of whether this was "forced" by any locals but It would be truth in action as opposed to lengthy philosophical discussions with fools who'll nod their pointy heads all the while feeding off of your wallet.

You, and your allies would be feeding off other peoples wallet, and then you'd have to give it up, some wouldn't. 

The locals might even thank you for it!  Pioneers of the past, who truly longed for their own piece of land and "peace", had to leave the all smothering embrace of their mother governments so I'm convinced that vast inconvenient distances are what make for freedom.  So someone get on the ball about that interplanetary wormhole project!

There are places closer that would work where you could provide real value to the locals, most are third world hellholes. 

Why would you assume that an invading state would have any interest in the system they are replacing?

Lets say the Russians see that America has thrown off the oppression of its state structure and become a happy, prosperous non-violent anarchist society.   The Russians think "Oh!  Lookie!  They don't have an organized military any more."  The next thing they do is start landing on the coasts.  First they send in special forces.  The SF's covertly take over key communication nodes like TV and radio stations.  Remember that the free flow of information is vital to the effective organization of a distributed system like this anarchist thing.  They use force to make the announcers continue broadcasting as if nothing was amiss.  Then they start landing their troops who simply move inland from the coast.  The troops don't negotiate with anyone, they don't make any promises, they don't talk to the DROs.  All they do is establish a perimiter and force all non-Russians out of it.  If people don't leave, they kill them publicly as an incentive, or they simply use a dog to run them off, or whatever.

Now the Russians have a sizeable area that has infrastructure, but no tenants.  Phase B, if you will, is when they start landing thousands of their own citizens who colonize the area.  Perhaps they could even have bought a controlling interest in vital DRO's around the "country" who would now spring into action.  For the remaining DRO's to put up a meaningful defense they would have to band together, but the Russian-owned DRO's will sow confusion and help keep everyone off balance by feeding misinformation into the system and generally being difficult, if not outright hostile.  Maybe 5 or 10 years later the Russians simply expand their colony with another push and another batch of their own citizens.

The only way to fight a state is with another state.  Since you have already established that states are evil and love nothing more than using their power to abuse people, what incentive would foreign states have to respect the existence of the anarchist system?  They will simply see a large batch of natural resources being controlled by an organization that is not powerful enough to resist them, and take over.

It may seem so, but it is not the case...

Have a look here and let me know what you think.

http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2008/08/stateless-society-and-collective.html

  I understand that you are busy running a movement, but that chapter had almost nothing to do with my post.

The crux of my argument was that a stateless "area" cannot defend itself as effectively as a state, especially against a state.

I would appreciate it if you would address the specific scenario I laid out in which Russia (or whoever) simply uses its military to clear an area of its anarchist inhabitants and colonizes it with its own excess population.  Things like "The German army cannot reasonably ship French houses to Germany – perhaps they will seize French cars and French electronics and ship them to Germany instead" are not applicable.  As anarchists, would the population of the affected "area" be able to mount a coherent defense?  Would anarchists who were not in the affected area join together, risk their life and their property, to defend other anarchists?

Additionally, your idea that "the only thing that would really ever be needed is a few nuclear weapons as a deterrent" actually made me giggle the first time I heard it.  The simplest critique of this idea is that there are plenty of countries which have more than "a few" nuclear weapons and not one of them feels they are enough of a deterrent on their own.  By way of an example, if a neighboring country sends its army into the anarchistic "area" is one of the DROs going to launch the nuke inside the borders of the area it controls?  A nuke is not a tactical weapon.  It is only useful as a strategic deterrent.  So, it only makes sense to launch the nuke against a large target in an area far enough removed from the launcher that they don't have to deal with the consequences like fallout.  That implies the interior of the invading country.  Would an anarchist DRO really launch a nuke against the innocent, oppressed citizens of a state just because the state's evil coercive government launched an attack on the area the DRO controls?  Additionally, if the DRO did use its nuke, how would it ensure that solved the problem?  A nuke, for all its fearsom power, only has a certain area of effect.  Most states are large enough to allow a nuke to go off inside of them and keep on trucking, but now they're legitimately upset.  Wouldn't it make sense for the state to hold the subscribers of the DRO responsible for the nuclear attack?  Wouldn't that put the subscribers in more danger?

 Another point about nukes specifically, but about the who DRO idea in general, is that small organizations are more limited in ability than large organizations.  A state, with all its tax revenue and it's lack of a need to turn a quarterly profit, can do a lot of things.  For example, what is to stop the state's highly trained, well equipped special operators from taking over the nukes and rendering them inoperative?  What is to stop the state from simply bombing the nuke sites preemptively?  What is to stop the states from paying the nuke operators a massive bribe to sabotage or simply refuse to fire the nukes?  The state coudl even buy a controling interest in all the relevant DROs and dissolve them just before it invades, leaving the subscribers defenseless.  All of these options are open to a state because it can simply demand the money necessary.

That's interesting, that my statement about nukes made you giggle - do you know of any nuclear power that has even been directly invaded? I can't think of any...