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

Being the wrong type of government can be a reason

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?

A spot of land with a tank sitting on it?

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