No.268
Can national defence be provided through anarcho-capitalism, or is this the one unsolvable problem that we will need to keep a state around for?
No.269
File: 1420924039160.jpg (15.32 KB, 500x327, 500:327, Unidentified-artist-xx-Ear….jpg)
Strange, I was just having this conversation with someone else:
What if I told you that private national defense is mentioned in the Constitution (Article I, Sec. 8 cl. 11 ) and that the market has a history of providing national defense so cheaply and efficiently that not only did it create several profitable industries around it, but it made government naval officers so fearful for their jobs that they lobbied to have the practice banned internationally?
http://www.independent.org/.../workin.../41_privateering.pdf No.293
Chaos Theory: Private Defense | by Robert P. Murphy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgXeP5W9c-M34 minute long video, worth a look IMO.
No.298
No.319
>>268my answer to this is just go ahead and try to invade into a bunch of pissed off anarchists.
No.372
One interesting point is that an an-cap society would not have any "gentleman's agreement" with other states about not assassinating presidents and such, I don't imagine that invasion talks would have much support in any modern government if supporting them meant a price gets put on your head.
The fact that a free society might mean that near-anyone could own some serious weaponry might also dissuade potential invaders, as would the world-wide outcry (and sanctions, world-court prosecutions, etc) that would result from any mass-slaughter of peaceful people in the modern age.
Also, mercenaries and wider defense groups exist (see NATO for example), no reason why people in an an-cap society couldn't collectively train/fund/join such a group if they thought it necessary or wise.
No.396
>>372>One interesting point is that an an-cap society would not have any "gentleman's agreement" with other states about not assassinating presidents and such, I don't imagine that invasion talks would have much support in any modern government if supporting them meant a price gets put on your head.Never had this thought before, but it is kinda neet.
No.399
>>396>neetI meant neat. Dammit. Should stop using 80's vocabulary.
No.452
>>268Yes it can, authority through might with the cost being extortion, naturally. That would be a federal defense without the slightest congressional influence. The majority that accept extortion will fall under the federal security umbrella, naturally.
No.479
File: 1429529934506.png (141.74 KB, 264x395, 264:395, 10570458_282448755291949_2….png)
