From: Amara Graps (amara@amara.com)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 04:16:40 MST
Technotranscendence, Sat Mar 22, 2003 07:46 am:
>On Saturday, March 22, 2003 1:22 AM Samantha Atkins
>samantha@objectent.com wrote:
>> I am more inclined to the minarchist position. However,
>> I don't believe I have studied the question deeply enough
>> to make a fully informed choice. Can you or anyone
>> here recommend sources for the anarchocapitalist
>> position and theory?
>Funny you should ask.:)
[good resources followed]
Very nice list, Dan.
Here's one more. This author analyzes in detail a national defense
for an anarchist society, so this then might address Rafal's concerns.
According to this author's categorization, I would be one of those
who say "there would be no state to conquer". I don't mind. I'm glad
that this author has given a lot of thought to the concept, and I
appreciate the many people who are thinking and looking into this
idea. Preston analyzes Hoppe, and he does address the free rider
problem. Whether that is satisfactory, is up to the readers.
http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=330
Anarchist National Defense and Foreign Policy
by Keith Preston
In fifteen years of attempting to explain anarchist ideas to others,
by far the most common objection I have encountered involves the
matter of the alleged vulnerability of an anarchist society or
territory to external marauders or invaders. It is claimed that a
powerful centralized state in possession of a large military
bureaucracy is essential if outward aggressors are to be deterred or
repelled. If an anarchist nation were to be little more than a
"sitting duck", ripe for conquest by any foreign power willing to
make the effort, then this would indeed seem to be a fatal blow to
the anarchist position. The defensibility of an anarchist society,
in a military sense, is a crucial : perhaps the most crucial
: question in determining the legitimacy of anarchism as
viable political philosophy.
Unfortunately, this is also the realm of anarchist thought where the
varying schools of anarchism are the least well-developed. Some
anarchists deny that military defense is necessary at all and
profess either outright pacifism or make the extravagant claim that
an anarchist society would be immune to military conquest because
"there would be no state to conquer", citizens of the anarchist
society would resist conquest through civil disobedience, an
anarchist nation would have no enemies, "the free market would take
care of it," or other inanities. All of this seems to me to be
wishful thinking of the highest order. The question of military
defense is one that anarchists must be able to answer effectively if
anarchist ideas are to ever be taken seriously by more than a
handful of people. With the notable exception of David Friedman (1),
no major anarchist theoretician has ever attempted to deal with this
question in a realistic or nuanced manner. Even those who have
approached the issue, like Hans Hermann Hoppe or the Tannehills (2),
rely on some simplistic assertion, like the idea of defense services
provided by insurance agencies, as a means of dismissing the
question. Simply put, anarchists are going to have to do better than
that. The efficacy of anarcho-armies organized by insurance
companies is by no means a proven fact. Much, much more serious
study and analysis needs to be given to this issue of utmost
importance. It would seem that there are three primary questions
that need to be answered: the matter of how anarchist defense forces
would be organized and financed, the manner by which the task of
actually defending an anarchist country would be executed, and the
implications of a post-nuclear world for anarchist military theory.
[...]
--------------
See the article for the details.
-- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara@amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help." --Calvin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 24 2003 - 05:28:28 MST