A certain amount of it obviously boils down to how brutal the invading force will be

Or how easy the population gives up

But guerilla warfare is crazy effective

That generally means you are already occupied

Or you are invading

Guerilla warfare works... Except you have already lost your home.... The thing ancaps are defending

Right but any invading force has to deal with the idea that occupation will be long and bloody

Yes, but what are they fighting for once an ancap loses their house?

How good did Syria and Iran seem to Americans after Iraq? Not great

Reclamation of property

What property?

A spot of land with a tank sitting on it?

The property they had that is now occupied by an invading force

Land itself has value

Idk about you,but at that point, if my home.is gone, it's easier to just leave and rebuild.

Leave to where?

Better chances of living

A state that will subjugate you?

Good question, where to go? Either somewhere the invading force does not care about yet, or a different community

Or the revial state

That doesn't make any sense

Only if death is preferable to living in the US or something

If I'm doing fine and commies up and burn my house down, I'm not gonna go "Welp, time to join the fascists because I don't have a home to go back to"

Nations are not constants

If a state like the US is so bad, why not just start fighting now? You are already occupied.

Other states exist

Or if there is only one state, the. You just keep going back to ancap places until there is none left

At which point then you fight

But I doubt there would ever be one state

Because former ancaps would team up and form a state just to defeat the Invaders and stop them

What? The fact that there is another state doesn't mean it's a good choice

Of all the countries that exist today how many would you want to live in?

Over out right dying? Most.

It's not outright death

I would at least consider living under the radar in a place that is not currently involved in the war.

You seem to be setting up a series of false dichotomies instead of addressing the core issue

Which is?

Your issue ultimately isn't specific to ancapistan and your solution is to allow tyranny to grow

Which is a strategy that provably doesn't work

The us is tyranny?

Your solution to an invading force is to keep fleeing

And again, the US is temporary, it is not a constant

Do people not do that?

It will not always be a superpower and it will not always be free

Flee war?

They do, and when everyone does it, what happens?

Tell me, how effective was isis or Al queda?

The 20th century is full of examples of what happens when you refuse or are u able to defend yourself against tyrants

Any of the Syria rebels?

Right because no other major issues were caused by Syria

It's all just localized to the middle east

Why haven't any of those groups kept control?

Because there's a bigger tyrant

And said tyrant is attacking other countries

And has done so under a prior imperial regime

So all European countries and the US are, in fact, tyrants?

Russia is

Russia is backing Assad

Russia is why ISIS has been forced out of Iraq?

Russia is why none of the rebel groups unseated Assad

So in other words, smaller states or groups of people are only allowed to exist if bigger states allow them?

In an area where the larger stare already controls and is familiar with the landscape?

As opposed to your prior example of a foreign invading force?

Methinks the goalposts have shifted somewhat. Further, before the obvious example is used, Assad didn't make Syria out of nothing. It's a long established plot of land

Getting back to my previous point: who stops the warlord and who stops the formation of a state who want to oppose the warlord?

How do you stop the greedy from playing within the rules, bending them slightly, to form power?

How do you stop history from repeating itself?

Stop the tribes from giving way to kingdoms from giving way to empires?

All of human history is basically the story of NAP. You don't hurt me, I don't hurt you. But then someone doesn't play nice.

And someone else uses that to gain power

Most of history had no equalizers

And another someone uses that to gain power in opposition.

The US has multiple instances of the citizenry overcoming components of the state by force

And then a group of people who dislike both sides gang up.

Yes, and we have a document we really behind to do that

You proposing a one world constitution?

And everyone following it when we have factions already not following it?

What? I'm saying if someone attacks you, you defend yourself. There are many historical instances of smaller defensive forces fucking over large powers

And very few of them winning without a larger force to back them.

That's also because we're generally talking about poor countries. Even with the backing they're still significantly outnumbered and outgunned

I've been reading this debate happening, I actually think @Grenade123 is factually and historically correct in his arguments, here. Any stateless society concept, be it Ancapistan or Commugrad, innately depends on the altruism - and participation of it's participants. Communism, in order to take root, historically requires a culling of dissenters and shit-stirrers, often the change-makers that bring about the regime in the first place. It's theoretical success depends on a complaint, productive society. Normally, the party involved in carrying out the culling has no reason to give up power, and even if they did, someone else would take that power away. This is why the promise of a Stateless Communist utopia ends in dictatorship.

In the creation of a stateless Capitalist society, it strikes me that a similar culling would be required to physically remove the dissenters from the equation, presumably by helicopter. From there, as Grenade points out, the power would reside, effectively, in the most powerful property owner. The existence of ANY 'stateless' society depends on nobody setting up a structure, or order of doing things. After all, the AnCap philosophy does not only depend on a commitment to the NAP but to anarchist principles as well. (1/3)

It is well worth acknowledging the levels of structure that govern daily life. Our Federal Government is the overarching 'state', with various alliances and accords potentially dictating to the state. Below that, in the United States, anyway, we have our State government that gives us rules and laws. Below that, we have the county government. One step lower, we have city government. And one step even lower than that, some of us have bylaws of homeowners associations that we're beholden to.

Let's say a community exists around a lake. In the common interest of preserving that lake, and the property value around it - they make an arrangement. They all agree to an accord that regulates what they're allowed to do near the lake. This accord may say that nobody is allowed to channel the lake off to another area, as theoretically they could do if they so chose. They are not allowed to dump trash in the lake. They are mutually allowed to cross into other member's portions of the lake. Guess what. They've just created a low form government. Breaking a stateless society is as easy as SOMEONE forming a state. (2/3)

Perhaps, given that the plan inherently calls for arbiters to be chosen to settle matters, and security firms to handle breaches of the NAP... Rather than creating a power vacuum that will inevitably be filled at random by what amounts to the highest bidder, it might be best to reclaim the State that exists, peacefully, for our own again. The United States is broken. It was originally supposed to be 50 individual states that operated under a common code addressing fundamental human rights - Life, Liberty, and ~~the pursuit of happiness~~ Property. Perhaps it's worth considering that a return to those principles, from where we are, so far from those cores, where government is actually a lot closer and a LOT more accountable, and the Federal government exists solely to defend borders, settle inter-state disputes, protect the constitutional rights of the individual from the State's tyranny, and properly organize the defense efforts of the states. We've strayed quite far from the original path, but even so it's worked remarkably well so far, here. (End)

- A Novel by Rye North

~~7/10 too many words~~

i generally agree with all of that, although i have concerns about decentralizing the US govt too much

I find arguments like this equivalent to "You're already a feminist, you just dont know it yet". When you're talking about voluntarism and ancaps, you arent talking about people who want there to be no rules between people, you're talking about people who want every level of that to be voluntary interaction between parties, with the threat of force acting as a deterrent for breaking the NAP. If you want to call that low-form government that's fine, but it doesnt break the concept of Ancapistan. You're just shifting the goalposts away. Ultimately the lake is still controlled through land ownership and concensus between land owners. There isnt a third party that demands the lake be used in a different manner, despite not living on or near the lake, and not actually being in ownership of it. Further, the "most powerful property owner" argument isnt really absolute. If you own 2 guns and everyone else owns 1, you're not going to take over the country all of a sudden, despite being the person with the largest arsenal. There's definitely a threshold, over which someone could start fucking things up for those around them, and I think this does bring us to the point where Ancaps will complain to minarchists/classical liberals/etc about upkeep despite that being a function of their system (and all other systems) as well.

Further, the implication that Ancapistan has to be brought about by revolution is false. There are already a multitude of nonviolent attempts to create libertarian sectors (seasteading was a big one that didnt seem to go anywhere, but AFAIK Free State is still trucking), and really Ancapistan is just a couple steps further than that (I just dont prefer it, as I would rather choose what the state looks like and do upkeep from there. I'm also not opposed to some very limited state functions beyond the usual "monopoly on force")

I mean, the fact that the concept of the state exists in every great civilization seems to be a testament to the fact that hierarchal states will always develop, and that the lack of that hierarchal structure is a vacuum and a condition of non-development. Feudalism developed in both Europe and in Asia. Democracy developed in various forms in Ancient Athens and again in Ancient Rome. Hell, even tribes historically have Chiefs or Elders. None of these things were formed from the eternal abyss of pre-history. Concepts of property, and punishment for theft of said property can be rather safely assumed to have been the root of the development of civilization.

My argument is less of a 'You're already a Statist, you just don't know it yet', and more of a means of pointing out that the development of -a- state is the natural order of things. That first phase towards more liberal societies does not begin with a liberal first step. Generally it takes the form of a monarchy, or a dictatorship. At some point, it becomes bloody revolution, as it has historically. No state dies peacefully. Given these points, it strikes me as a rather gory path to push for a reset to the evolution of civilization that Anarchy explicitly demands.

[For Citation, see Code of Ur-Nammu]

How does it work for anarchy to exist is there is no longer any common sense... like anything goes?

it's going to be either idiocracy or the orville: majority rule

For anarchy to work on a world scale, everyone would need to be part of the same cult

Which is also one reason why socialism and communism doesn’t work.

that, and the fact that socialism and communism are inherently flawed, stupid and evil.

in theory they sound nice, in practice they don't work

This is why those ideologies thrive in an environment where it doesn't matter if it doesn't work (academics etc)

they don't even sound nice in theory.

what's nice about "it does not matter how hard you work you will never get rewarded for it"?

and "it does not matter what you *want* to do, because you have a responsibility to do whatever will most help our society"

one could go on for hours with all the things that do not even sound good in theory.