From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sat Mar 22 2003 - 07:46:29 MST
On Friday, March 21, 2003 9:32 AM Rafal Smigrodzki rafal@smigrodzki.org
wrote:
> ### Reading the "Machinery of freedom" it seems to me
> that David Friedman wasn't able to come up with a
> plausible anarchist solution to the problem of defense
> against organized external aggression, and he admits it.
Ah, but Friedman, for all his perceptiveness and ability, is but one
man. Others have moved in to tackle this issue, including Hans-Hermann
Hoppe and Larry Sechrest. See the former's "The Private Production of
Defense" at: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf (it's in
Acrobat, but you can get it converted by google if you don't have or
want the Acrobat reader). See also "Hoppe Revisited" by Rick Gee at
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/gee4.html
On the latter, see "Privateering and National Defense: Naval Warfare for
Private Profit"
at:http://www.independent.org/tii/WorkingPapers/Sechrest6.html
These are by no means the only thinkers to take up this challenge. See
the papers at:
http://libertariannation.org/b/natdef.htm
Candid confession, for a long time I believed too that defense against
external threats would be the sumbling block for anachic societies.
Now, it seems the case is not so univocal. I'm not saying Sechrest,
Hoppe, Benson, et al. are right here, but they make pretty good
arguments for how anarchic/polycentric societies can deal with defense.
Also, I would add, if humans or posthumans spread into space, it will be
extremely hard for any sort of centralized state to encompass them. The
costs of enforcement will grow and the costs of disobedience will
shrink. Perhaps the same is happening in the virtual realm too.
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 22 2003 - 07:51:25 MST