-5 votes

What is the anarchist or voluntarist theory of war?

This is one question I haven't explored much with anarchists and strikes my curiosity. Did any of the heavy weight ancaps like Rothbard or Hoppe write about their idea of just war?

When you think about wars, historically, and the behavior of generals and leaders, the ones who win the wars were always willing to sacrifice the neutrality of third parties, conscript soldiers, permit collateral damage, and so on, in the service of the greater strategic necessity.

I am pretty much totally unfamiliar with how ancaps or voluntarists would approach the question of war. I know they believe in self defense, but that doesn't explain how they would respond to contingencies in which successful self defense, strategically, required things like seizing defensible area, resource depots, etc.

Has any war ever been won without recourse to behaviors that violate a strict rendering of NAP? If not, then how could NAP adhering security groups expect to hold their own in the general violence market?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Dude, i am totally jazzed right now!

My best friend totally just wrote a paper on decentralized warfare. I am really excited to share it.

Séamusín

Necessity is a mother

http://mises.org/daily/2885

The Criminals volunteer to be The Criminals and The Criminals employ their Criminal Aggression Principle.

The AP guy out in the open, for all to see, does this:

"In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation."

The AP guy hidden in plain sight is the guy who thinks he has pulled the wool over the eyes of his victims.

What makes that AP guy think that he has pulled the wool over the eyes of his victims?

The victims keep paying the extortion fee?

Is that proof positive that the AP guy has pulled the wool over the victims eyes?

If the victims know it is a Crime in Progress, then The Criminals are pulling the wool over their own eyes, creating a false belief that their Crimes are "for the good" of their victims.

That explains the consistent refusal to see the facts as the facts exist in reality.

That need for a false version of The Criminal facts, to cover up the fact that The Criminals are The Criminals, is the need to make The Criminals themselves feel good about the fact that The Criminals are The Criminals; they invent a false front, a false reasoning, for their choice to be The Criminals.

They pull the wool over their own eyes.

They do so for reasons that they will not confess.

Their actions confess; where their words do not confess, where their minds are guilty, and their lies are invented to cover up their guilty minds in their guilty minds, there actions confess as they choose to perpetrate crimes.

The Emperor has no cloths, little children know this, yet the Emperor and his sycophants continue with their pathological pantomime, for reasons only they know at heart; in their souls, if anything is left of a soul past the point of no return.

http://silkworth.net/fitquotation.pdf

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information,
which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail
to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is
contempt prior to investigation.”

When the goal is self-deception, how can the champion know when the goal is reached?

1.
When confronted with the facts the champion cannot see them.

2.
When confronted with the answers to the questions asked the champion cannot see them.

3.
When offered reason the champion chooses ignorance.

Joe

OP

Your fascination with the NAP is interesting. Something seems to be getting lost in translation. Would you put in your own words a definition of the NAP?

Thank you Ron for waking me up.

I use the

standard definition.

Evasive

You're being evasive to a very simple and reasonable request. "your own words".

There is no reason for you be taken seriously when you display such insincerity.

Thank you Ron for waking me up.

I'm not being evasive,

there's a standard definition. Do you not like to use standard definitions? I would call that evasive and non rigorous.

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.

Moving

I'm headed over to the "Does it violate NAP?" thread. My next questions is better suited over there.

Thank you Ron for waking me up.

He's a troll.

He's a troll. All the b.s. he spews is intentional. Best thing is to not feed the troll.

Lime

You contribute nothing to the discussion besides accusations of trolling. You are the troll, if anyone is.

Anarchy in the future

Anarchy is an ideal that resonates with me, or I would not be on this site, but it is something that is only possible within an enlightened society. People have to understand what is right and really internalize it in order to make "the state" an unnecessary "vestigial limb" of humanity. There are some people that, if left alone, could function very well without needing to create a government. But not since the frontier was conquered has such a "black box" society existed, and not until Mars has settlements will there be another opportunity for the necessary seclusion. Until then, anarchism will be an ideal. Most people are either too greedy or too fearful for such a society. I'm not dumping on the idea, I hope we move toward it all the time, but in order to get there, certain things have to happen first. I don't know what all of those things are, but I know it will be a long and difficult journey to get to the point where humanity can govern itself.
Right now, people do need government. More than government, they need leaders in any form: business, church, whatever. There is a serious lack of leadership today. We need leaders because we can't be trusted to know how to eat, how to build a house, how to do anything really. And you might be thinking, "Is that my problem?" And I might be thinking, "You're a dick." I can't watch a child starve, and I can't stand to watch a generation sink in intelligence, healthfulness, and prosperity. I am my brothers keeper, and until you help your neighbors to be self sufficient, they will be your burdens.

******************
"To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."

I don't get why so many

I don't get why so many people get hung up on this issue. NAP does not me I sit back and let people attack me. It just means I will not be the aggressor. But if you engage me then I will do all that I please to end the aggression.

First of if it was a true anarchist society there would be no groups forming to have a way. But assuming one does since there would always be small collectives forming, if it attacks any one person then that person has the right to eliminate the threat. But I could not force others to fight for me, just offer them incentives. But if the threat of aggression is valid in a free society others would want to end it before it effected them.

Now maybe they are incapable (dead or no resources. Then that person could ask for assistance to defend himself, or others seeing the threat as a valid threat to themselves could come together and eliminate the aggressor.

As far as taking strategic points and resources, while it would not be right to take resources from someone not involved that wanted to remain neutral, I am justified in taking the aggressors resources. (Just like any war today it is wrong to take over a neutral country in a war but you can occupy and take resources from a country you are fighting)

And since you are the aggressor and did so without my consent (the contract of war was not agreed upon by both parties freely) I am free to use whatever means necessary to end it (dictate the terms of the contract I was forced into) so long as it does not effect any outside party (does not force them into an unwanted contract as well).

You've misunderstood the post.

Re-read it with the assumption that I know what the NAP is, and you won't fake incorrect assumptions. Then it should make sense.

I actually read your post

I actually read your post several times before I responded. The majority of your post is written in such a way that it would be a contradiction for you to understand what NAP is.

Do a simple wikipedia read on it and it will clear up most of your questions.

As for your final question of has one been won sticking to the NAP. To my knowledge of the revolutionary war (I know it is a debate of weather we won it or they let us win to become debt slave, but assuming the 'official' account) it adhered to NAP. We were aggressed and responded to that aggression. To my knowledge there were no drafts to raise the army to fight, all people that signed up to do so did so freely, which is inline with anarchist views.
So while yes, we did take up arms and fight, it does not mean we violated NAP. Our freedoms were being restricted and taken away and we responded in a way to take them back.

I'm very clear on what NAP is,

are you?

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.

Any acts of force not in self defense would be invalid, a priori, on NAP. This comports fully with the questions raised on my post. The principle, being deontological, does not allow exceptions in exigent circumstances like a 'state of war.'

Your objection is without merit.

Taking action against an

Taking action against an aggressor to stop them from attacking again is the definition of self-defense. Therefore fighting a war is in line with NAP. Except it would not be considered a war if you are an anarchist because you would not be forced to fight for a governmental group that declares war.

I believe you are still missing the point of NAP. Your post said it all. NAP is not pacifism. With NAP you are allowed to use aggression and stop someone from harming you, you just are not allowed to be the initial aggressor.

If you hit me I can beat the crap out of you so you are no longer able to fight me, but only if you hit me first. Now me punching you just to instigate that fight would violate NAP.

Taking action against an aggressor

is not possible except for the victim or direct witnesses.

Third parties can only attack a presumed innocent, which is aggression.

Well first off without governments there would be no wars

But the question of what a free society would do about aggressor states (redundant) is valid. And the question has been answered, it would almost certainly be assassination.

Because a free society would be impervious to assassination in retaliation and assassination is incredibly cheap.

We aren't going to fight a war against you. We will simply kill everyone who orders troops into war until you cut that siht out.

Assuming somehow a free society got invaded despite no reason to do so (no tax infrastructure to seize) as for what makes a just war Rothbard has written a lot on the subject, but it's pretty simple.

A just war would be a war fought defensively using volunteers or with professionals paid voluntarily. Which is all that would be possible in a free society anyway. Now given it is a free society it's going to be rich as Croesus so there would be mechanisms in place to deter would be aggressors.

As for statist wars (again redundant) the two only remotely just wars were the Revolutionary War and the failed Confederate resistance to Union invasion.

And these are only 'just' by comparison to the other hideously unjust wars the Union has been engaged in.

Since the Colonies and the Confederacy both relied on taxing, borrowing, and conscription, and they both were slave owning societies, they aren't even remotely purely just. But more so than the rest.

I've already refuted the

I've already refuted the whole assassination crank theory elsewhere.

From what I've seen Rothbard never said anything about the questions I asked. You'll need to quote directly, as I already viewed the video below and it wasn't about the application of NAP to the kinds of tactics that are the topic of this post.

You make an assertion that an anarchist society would be as rich as some old King, but make no effort to justify this historically baseless, and absurd, claim.

You proceed to claim there would be "mechanisms in place to deter aggressors" without elaborating on their nature.

You then pointed to a couple wars that uses conscription and taxation and inflation as "just," before qualifying that they're not actually just, only less unjust than some other wars. This is obviously nonsensical talk.

You're still at square one without the ghost of an argument.

Do your own work.

My job is to use your weak arguments to show the weakness of statism.

Your job has been to make my job easy.

Thanks.

Rothbard discussed it. It's not germane to my purpose however. Do your own work.

And you refuted nothing regarding assassination.

If assassination didn't work then why did the US do it? We didn't stop it (supposedly) because it didn't work. The contemporary history of south america and south american US resentment is proof of it's 'success'.

We stopped it because it wasn't 'civilized'. Because killing a lot of naive good hearted American boys is more 'civilized' than killing a handful of the ruling class.

And sorry. No one is buying that the cheapest way to kill Hussein was 10 trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Whatever the number would be you can dispute. 100mil? A billion tops?

He's surrounded by sociopaths. The thing about sociopaths is that they can be bought off. That's really the primary design feature of sociopaths.

Well if you're not actually

going to attempt to carry your side, for the benefit of those who may be on the fence, then we can only assume you have no ability to do so, or don't care to.

Its become clear

that your definition of government is "anyone who uses aggression." Therefore, when you say aggression is impossible on anarchism, you're merely saying aggression is impossible if there's aggression. This is true, but also meaningless. There's nothing in your theory and contributions that explains why there wouldn't be aggressors. You're presenting an unfounded tautology as some kind of profound idea. In reality, it is meaningless and boring.

Pathetic straw man, even for you

That is not my definition, never remotely said that.

Actually my preferred definition of government would be the organization of a society.

My preferred definition for the state would be the monopoly of force.

We have governments all over the place that don't have a monopoly of force. Every firm has a government and rules. Technically governments aren't the problem, they are the solution.

States are the problem. Any government without a state is fine by me.

But people think of government and the state synonymously as almost everywhere the state has arrogated governing power. So I use the terms interchangeably as well with most people.

It doesn't need to do this actually. In theory you could have a minarchist state, like one that actually abode a Constitution. It would just be top predator taking what it needed, and allowing governance to those competent to govern, so long as it didn't grow. Unfortunately the state is like a cancer and cannot help but grow even if the people in it thinks it shouldn't. (ie supposed 'conservatives' in government always grow government)

A minimal state that accepted the truth of it's nature, like a monarchy would be sufferable.

A monarchy might even do so longer, since it's wealth is heritable and thus the rulers would be less prone to squander it.

But in democracy the ruling class can't always hold on to power and thus must seize all possible resources now and borrow as much as possible now because next election they may have no more ability to do so.

The other option would be a Constitution.. if Constitutions worked, which they don't. But if they did there would be practically no wealth to seize, so the state would be minimally destructive.

You use equivocation

regularly to avoid logical rigor. That is, you switch between different definitions of 'government.' You may not even realize you do it, but it is not conducive to constructive discussion. You can accuse me of the same thing if you want, and other people have to decide.

I like debating with you, because I feel you're one of the weakest proponents on the anarchist side. You seem to be so unaware of your violations of sound reasoning that I consider you a boon for my own argument.

At the same time, you are one of those I really can't make much sense of when I read your comments, so it wouldn't really bother me if we didn't converse. You are more of a rhetorical foil for me, allowing me to show how poorly argued the other side is in the debate.

But you don't actually advance the discussion in that razors edge kind of way that those members do who cross swords with logical rigor until we can narrow down and pinpoint the exact areas of disagreement and sort them out.

You're more of an appetizer, or side show, to the main course or main event. I welcome you to continue, assuming you don't realize how embarrassing it must be.

Oh and you are absolutely right

I am by far the weakest of the people arguing for freedom here. Any casual reader can clearly see how superior your rhetoric is:D

Please do not cease to 'embarrass' me, you are doing a bang up job!

Honestly, if you want to continue in this exercise you should immediately take formal and symbolic logic.

Until you pass them.

You don't even use the term equivocation correctly

Equivocation is what you do.

Consensus with unanimity.
State with government.
Force with aggression.

In fact that's your primary gig.

I defined terms. I don't leave any ambiguity about what I mean. That's why I define terms.

So when I say I reject the state it cannot be confused, even deliberately confused as you like to do.

I do not reject government. I reject the state. I reject the monopoly of force. When people conflate the state and government I do not usually take the time to educate them about the difference. I know they mean what the state has programmed them to mean. Power.

But government isn't technically power, and I do not reject government, anymore than I reject assignment of chores in a family. That is a government. And it operates entirely outside of violence. (in functional families)

Failing to define terms is the quintessence of equivocation. You fail to define terms because you know once nailed down, you have no chance to confuse people.

The terms don't matter to my argument. You can call aggression an emu and socialism a eggplant.

If you define the terms it won't help you, this is why you do not.

What I reject is one by physical force violating the rights of another. Call it what you like.

I also disapprove of one man by force of 'wit' doing the same, but you're not in danger of hurting anyone in this regard here.

Agreement

I is wonderful to find agreement where agreement is unexpected.

Joe

Why do you guys argue with

Why do you guys argue with Bill3? His sole goal here is to self-rationalize his own fear of cutting the chains to the state. So he advocates a system of violence and aggression personally because of theoretical violence that hasn't even happened that he's afraid of. In other words, your typical statist pseudo-libertarian.

It doesn't matter how many of his logical fallacies you point out, how many answers you give him that easily answer his loaded questions. When he's completely destroyed in one thread, he just starts another, or changes his name.

Ironically he even use the "Bill Clinton" argument (his namesake hence the irony) trying to challenge the definition of basic English words.

Pay him no attention, maybe he'll go troll somewhere else to quell his obvious timidity and fear. Liberty just isn't for the timid man.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Troll account

It doesn't matter how many of his logical fallacies you point out, how many answers you give him that easily answer his loaded questions. When he's completely destroyed in one thread, he just starts another, or changes his name.

This is exactly why this troll should be banned.

I respectfully disagree with banning him

He provides a wonderful opportunity to debunk statism. His arguments are exactly the sort of specious, but superficially plausible stuff that people get all the time.

Most people would not be masochistic enough to keep trying and keep getting hammered down. He is providing a service we couldn't pay for.

He is intelligent enough to create or regurgitate facile statist arguments but apparently not intelligent enough to know what a beating he is taking and how much he is helping us.

This makes him a perfect asset for us. I hope he is not banned. I don't even downvote him myself anymore, I don't want him to become discouraged.

They discuss with me

because they sincerely hold differing beliefs and want to defend them, and they think that they can show the correctness of their views. That's what honest people do when confident in their view.

You guys don't get in the ring because you either aren't confident or aren't sincere in your views, so you cast aspersions about your betters.

It would be interesting to see you two ballerinas engage in defending your views from mainstream opponents if you ever had the chance. You'd probably have no idea what to do and embarrass us all.

I, on the other hand, could dispatch them with ease because of all the honing I've done here and the clarity and rigor of my views.