Message from @Grenade123
Discord ID: 467836102884065280
Was that your result on the 8values test?
First, what are the chances of getting everyone on Earth following such a principal and not get greedy? Who is stopping the warlord before he gets to powerful? If not all people are following it, then how do you defend yourself again a state. How do you stop say Russia? While it's true an armed population is one hard to conquer, when you are not facing a standing army then it's just a matter of time, conquering one community after another. When we look at the third party in arbitration, what stops corruption? What stops a kangaroo court? Sure, what we current have isn't great. But I fail to see how you stop the formattion of a state, if a group of people wish to form a state?
I'm a social liberal, according to that.
I think it did, @possumsquat93
@Grenade123 I think that is a better explanation than what was going on earlier, and I think actuslly refutes it far better. And it is more along the lines of what I agree wutb.
Ah, but it is supported by my previous idea.
A "stateless" society can only be permitted to exist by the strongest entity.
Much like any current state is allowed to exist so long as larger states don't invade.
They don't just invade willy nilly though, nor have they ever really
Willy nilly depends on your view point
There's usually a larger purpose for it, and it's weighed against cost and difficulty
I would consider religious reasons to be Willy nilly
I wouldn't, but even with that in mind, there's a reason why Afghanistan still exists
@Grenade123 that would be an improper use of Willy Nilly than.
As it falls flat in the face if what that phrade means.
You are right, they don't invade without reason
To be more specific, states don't attack states solely on the basis that the former is larger/stronger than the latter
TIME TO FREEDOM THE ALFS
No, but that doesn't refute my point
There's usually some perceived benefits
Or just happened to be a good spot to attack their enemy
Well it's part of a larger question, since you seem to think conquering is a given
Look at Hawaii
We annex it, illegally by our own laws at the time, because it was a good place for a naval Base.
Okay, so what problem is presented by ancapistan if these things happen anyway?
The fall of any given superpower is inevitable. Nobody stays on top forever
My point is that a standing army or organized and recognized government increases the effort another someone to invade. And try and tell me that a place which has a standing army isn't a state in it's own regard.
If you are just a bunch of small communities, then you better be a bunch of militant communities, or living in a place that never has strategic value.
I don't know that I'd necessarily agree. Certainly central organization can help efficiency but it also provides easy targets for victory
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?