Most Anarchists mention ancient Ireland as an example of a successful Anarchy, that supposedly lasted for ages. Sure, it probably did last for some time. But why did it? My theory to answer this question is simple: sufficient isolation. A society that is isolated can be free easily, because it attracts no larger power structure. But the moment its markets and trade expand, other powers start noticing and they start looking for ways to capitalize on that new market development for the purpose of making it work to their benefit. So, maybe, a free society should increase its defense spending as its markets and trade expand out of their territories and venture into other societies territories. Ireland probably did, but they did it too late. They lacked unity, central leadership and border defense planning. So, when the British came, they were too weak and became easy prey for a more sophisticated power structure. That is the real meaning of Freedom isnt free. Perhaps most military members dont understand the meaning of it and just repeat it, but this is what it means; that defense spending should adapt to the expansion of the trade and markets, and that borders need to be enforced. Because a weakness WILL BE EXPLOITED by other surrounding societies, as history has repeatedly shown. I am sure most of you dont believe in political borders. But how can a free society protect its territorial integrity from other non-free surrounding structures of power without some form of border enforcement? Do they just ignore the borders of other surrounding nations that are willing to use force for it? Also, the individuals that live at the borders of those non-free states, will be forced to spend more on collective defense for any invasion from those states, while the ones that live far within the borders of the free society geographically could afford not to. But why would anyone want to live in a conflict region with the greater costs of defense upon themselves? We could argue about the morality of forced collective defense and maybe how would it be possible to achieve it through voluntary means. But I dont think it is worth arguing about the importance of collective defense because it is probably the most important thing for a free society to stay free. Just like private property, it is defined by an artificial boundary that the owner is willing to use force to protect or regulate (in the case of private land etc). If people can put fences on their private properties to prevent other individuals with no right to the property, then why cant people in a free society do the same to prevent invasions of people of other non-free societies? And how does a non-free society is prevented from invading, with no defined defense lines that will be enforced? Unless you establish a supreme police-state kind of free society, you cant really pretend to justify not having a standing army and just leave it to private property enforcement/local police, etc. Also, sea trade... If a merchant ship carrying resources or products traded in another region is stolen or destroyed by the navy of some other non-free regime... or a corporation from the free society established in some other geographical region ruled by a non-free regime, that is important to the free people is seized by the regime because the people there voted on nationalizing it for their own, breaking their own contracts with the corporation... isnt that wrong? Dont the people in the free society have the right to fight for their corporation and its rights for the violation of contract by the regime? Dont the free people in the free society have a right to use force to protect their sea trade also and to use their military might against any regime or groups of people that use violence against it? In conclusion, markets need protection. Im not saying that they need only collective protection, but they need protection from theft and violence. And unless you can establish a really strong military culture, you cant have a free society without a standing army. And a free society cant stay free for long without some military readiness or organized military to efficiently go to war to protect its interests and sovereignty. Any good answers welcome from the thinking anarchists (an-caps only. an-comms dont bother; not interested in anything yall can say).
Posted on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 03:26:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015