Comment: Militias and "organization"

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Just because you raise a militia (see in situ)

Militias and "organization"

1. If a militia isn't big or well enough armed to handle a big gang (or an invading government army, same difference), they might make mutual-defense pacts with other militias to improve their chances. Or maybe not. Maybe the good guys lose sometimes. Life isn't fair. The invaders might conquer, rape, loot and enslave the community.

But that's equally true if the community is ruled by a "government," isn't it? The only difference is, if the community already has a "government," they're ALREADY enslaved. So what's your point?

2. "Organization" comes in different flavors. Free men use the "voluntary cooperation & trade" flavor. Government subjects use the "do-as-you're-told-or-else" flavor. Everyone to their own taste. If you like "orderly," maybe the Nazi flavor would suit you? If you prefer "peaceful" or "free," the "government" flavors aren't so great.

3. Could a criminal gang be a militia? Well, "criminal" is what government calls anyone who doesn't follow their orders. So simply labeling people "criminals" doesn't necessarily mean they're doing anything morally wrong. Gangs that sell "illegal" products and services to willing customers without using fraud or coercion are "criminals" only in a legal sense, not a moral sense. An "illegal" militia that functioned according to the Non-Aggression Principle would deserve our respect and support. On the other hand, a militia that initiates force against innocent people (trying to emulate a government) doesn't deserve to be called a "militia" at all -- they're just another gang. Or "government," same difference.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition,