[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / arepa / cyoa / dempart / doomer / fast / lovelive / miku / vg ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Winner of the 68rd Attention-Hungry Games
/d/ - Home of Headswap and Detachable Girl Threads

January 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Ya'll need Mises.

File: dee4efba0cacd97⋯.jpg (32.65 KB, 800x533, 800:533, china-flag.jpg)

File: 65ffd2697ae4fe5⋯.jpg (282.8 KB, 600x400, 3:2, china-95th-annivesary-part….jpg)

 No.97670

In ancapistan why wouldn't rich governments just buy all the land?

 No.97671

Because not all owners of justly acquired property would be willing to sell their land.


 No.97672

>>97671

what if they kill them


 No.97673

>>97671

If I was an owner of land and the Chinese government offered me a nice sum of money. I would probably take it and buy nicer land somewhere else.


 No.97676

File: 91ad61f2c49d1e6⋯.jpg (412.22 KB, 676x1540, 169:385, rothbard_vs_shitty_memes.jpg)

Man, this picture is getting more mileage than OP's mother on a Friday night.


 No.97730

>>97670

Then ancaps would have all the capital. You need better thought questions.


 No.97731

I love ancap shit, but these kind of questions show why ancap philosophy is more of a guideline than something really applicable


 No.97734

I don't understand. Do these retards honestly believe that an ideology designed to abolish government would not also take into account the threat of foreign governments or do they really think it will be open season?


 No.97750

>>97734

> or do they really think it will be open season?

Well yeah. Law of the jungle.


 No.97834

>>97671

>They refuse

>Gets steamrolled by the very material very large and equipped statist army

Lel


 No.97835

File: 0683db06598fea2⋯.gif (1.09 MB, 234x154, 117:77, that has to hurt.gif)

>>97834

> What is private defense

You could at least have attempted to read a thesis on topics such as these from a libertarian/ancap perspective rather than just being a plain retard. Then again,

>Communist

Why did I expect anything else?


 No.97841

>>97835

>Private / Voluntary defence formed in the vacuum of the collapse of state authority is / would be able to fend of a trainer and equiped army

stay in denial

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Days


 No.97846

>>97672

Well since we apparently get to just make up whatever shit we want for this scenario, then we'll just come back from the dead and kill them back.


 No.97848


 No.97873

File: 2a70f0991a7c1f8⋯.webm (3.07 MB, 400x230, 40:23, Youshotitallprivate.webm)

>>97841

>stay in denial

I'm not in denial of anything, you on the other hand seem to have an odd fixation on the idea that a privatized army wouldn't be trained or equipped (Which is a rather odd notion), that's not even mentioning that the examples you listed are hardly indicative of the performances of private defense groups in any real light, merely just small armies that failed miserably (with both examples involving Marxist armies that either faced infighting or at worst, blatant antagonism).

Most militias that succeed well enough to be known and/or fight on the level of an army (ie: the IRA, Ulster Volunteers, the FARC etc) tend to succeed where they do because they do have a degree of training, and a code of regulation in regards to equipment and the tactics to be used against enemy forces. This odd implication you have that a private/voluntary defense force wouldn't have such provisions ready teeters on being nonsensical. Along with this thesis, there's also the odd implication that state armies are efficient, when they are hardly even competent to the degree that most people envision them to be, one look at how the Chinese army operates makes that fairly evident, a conversation with an American officer makes military inefficiency obvious, and a single study of the many, many, MANY blunders and blatant failures of the Russian army can be found to be both humorous and depressing.

This is ironically why private contractors were having a hay-day in Iraq, they were by-and-large better paid, better trained and more quick and efficient at achieving various goals that the pentagon wanted done (I should stress that this is not a justification of their actions or even their presence in Iraq or Afghanistan anymore so than it is a justification of the US military being in these areas, rather this is simply a demonstration that a private entity is more efficient at achieving goals).

Military structures, despite being put forth as an example of the efficiency of the state are (ironically enough) hardly the most efficient in the hands of the state, as is the same with any service that the state provides simply due to the fundamental nature of the state. It's inefficient, wasteful and has no incentive to be either of the aforementioned qualities due to the fact that it does not serve consumers as a market firm would, but rather it coerces them into paying for the state's services, which is a recipe for a long term disaster.


 No.97874

Any property right is a right of conquest.


 No.97904

File: 09c0c7df80e6c25⋯.png (1.23 MB, 851x851, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png)

>>97835

>private """"""""""""defense"""""""""""""

>warlords of China get defeated by Mao


 No.97905

>>97904

>Rome gets defeated by warlords of Germanic barbarians

>Somalian commie gov gets defeated by Somalian commie warlords

Wow, I can cherrypick too.


 No.97934

>>97670

Yeah probably. china is buying real estate all over Canada and New York City.

https://www.businessinsider.com/china-investors-inflating-housing-markets-in-us-canada-australia-2018-6

Ancapistan is probably one of the most retarded utopian ideas ever conceived. Theres a reason only weird teenagers are into it


 No.97936

>>97934

Fact: The more aggressively a poster calls everyone around him teenagers, the more likely he is underage himself.


 No.97943

File: 317ee86012e875d⋯.jpg (42.24 KB, 500x420, 25:21, Yes im certain that not a ….jpg)

>>97934

>just use a bunch of ideas that have proven successful in the past, acknowledging that it'll never be perfect, but at least it'll be better equipped to respond to problems

>utopian

Ok bud.

>Theres a reason only weird teenagers are into it.

Teenagers want free shit. At least try to make your strawman make some kind of sense.


 No.97950

>>97873

>FARC (Who eventually surrendered and failed to defeat the US / Colombia army) and the IRA (Who failed to even capture any significant territory and were relegated to assassination and bomb scares and were killed whenever directly confronted by the British army or police) proves that paid warlords and voluntary armies can defeat the mobilized military of a attacking / occupying power

K

And yes large armies can have flaws and inefficiencies but can still in symmetrical combat easily steamroll non-state actors

And the use of mercenaries in MidEast conflicts isn't just because their epic hardcore operators but because it creates a veil of plausible deniability between the US / NATO and its actions


 No.97951

>>97950

>in symmetrical combat

So don't do that.


 No.97953

>in symmetrical combat

Of all the things for the commie to be retarded on, I would have expected him to at least have some idea of how guerillas work.


 No.97954

>>97951

And what spend 5 decades fighting an asymmetrical people's war against the statist invader?


 No.97959

File: 64cf61774eab386⋯.png (529.68 KB, 946x1680, 473:840, 9abf0a20d99ce33787f86d2608….png)

>>97936

not an argument

>>97943


 No.97960

>>97934

>Yeah probably. china is buying real estate all over Canada and New York City.

what is a market bubble


 No.97961

>>97950

>FARC

>surrender

It was a ceasefire

Also, private armies were relied upon by Carthage.


 No.97962

>>97904

Only because Mao's troops fought to the death for the promise of free gibs. A shame they fought in vain.


 No.97967

>>97960

in Vancouver the Chinese were buying all the property and caused the housing prices to go up


 No.97972

File: e936fc0c80a108d⋯.png (531.65 KB, 540x519, 180:173, ClipboardImage.png)

>>97962

>fought in vain


 No.97974

File: 24adcc3e0ebbf2c⋯.png (1.33 MB, 1190x1194, 595:597, Violence has Escalated.png)

>>97950

>FARC (Who eventually surrendered and failed to defeat the US / Colombia army) and the IRA (Who failed to even capture any significant territory and were relegated to assassination and bomb scares and were killed whenever directly confronted by the British army or police) proves that paid warlords and voluntary armies can defeat the mobilized military of a attacking / occupying power

Not only is everything you're saying a half-truth at best, but you've completely missed the point. The point isn't that the IRA or FARC are proof or that they're the model for a modern private army, but rather that they succeed where they do due to learning military structures, strategy and building an army accordingly, the implication that a private army (which has the key advantage of a profit-loss system which encourages efficiency) wouldn't take note of these things is asinine.

Also as one anon already mentioned; with FARC it was a cease-fire, as with the IRA, what you said is just blatantly false. With reference to both the war of independence in the early 1900s (which is the reason there's a split between North and mainland Ireland to begin with) as well as the troubles. While one could certainly argue that the IRA during the troubles wasn't exactly the most moral (especially the Provisional IRA), that wouldn't change the fact that they were exceedingly efficient at killing British personnel (certainly far more so than vice versa), and that British personnel would be hard pressed to venture into IRA heavy territory without good reason.

Mind you, I could have just as easily have referenced the Taliban and how they pretty much kicked the sorry shit out of the Soviets during the 1980s, but the point is in the fact that they could fight these armies in a competent manner, and they did so due to an understanding of tactics, equipment, etc. It's not that rag-tag militias are some sort of ideal, it's that depending on how well-organized and trained they are, they can actually put up fairly significant resistance. A private army even moreso due to economic incentives of being a market actor and not wasting resources.

>And yes large armies can have flaws and inefficiencies but can still in symmetrical combat easily steamroll non-state actors

It's not just that they have 'flaws' but rather that these flaws create massive inefficiencies that will inevitably hamper their ability to successfully initiate combat in any successful capacity. One can look at the massive amount of corruption in the Chinese army or their lack of worthwhile recruits and see massive problems with the organization in question. This would not and could not reflect well in an actual conflict.

>And the use of mercenaries in MidEast conflicts isn't just because their epic hardcore operators but because it creates a veil of plausible deniability between the US / NATO and its actions

That's just not actually correct.


 No.97980

File: 4b185b442f71ec3⋯.mp4 (6.21 MB, 480x360, 4:3, Bear_Please_Stop.mp4)

>>97959

>avoids accusation, no denial

Should've just kept your mouth shut and ignored the post tbh.


 No.97986

>In ancapistan why wouldn't rich governments just buy all the land?

If they're doing so fairly, then they're paying you well enough to buy more land. Likely this isn't the case.

In a land GRAB, the historical habit of claythirsty governments and their cronies, the idea is to get people to "sell" the land for so cheap that they become tenants instead of owners from that moment forward. In other words, the government gains land it does not appropriately trade land for land.

That means coercion, that means aggression, that means McNuke™.


 No.98031

>>97967

yup, they are pretty much inflating the bubble


 No.98032

>>97904

>lose 90%+ of your troops

>declare victory

Truly the Pyrrhus of our time


 No.98034

>>97974

>failed to even capture any significant territory

>what is the entire Republic of Ireland


 No.98036

File: b1a9bb7bde9dbc7⋯.png (226.89 KB, 480x271, 480:271, ClipboardImage.png)

>>98032

>opponent loses 99% of china

>they win




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / arepa / cyoa / dempart / doomer / fast / lovelive / miku / vg ]