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)