Daily Anarchist Forum
December 07, 2019, 11:12:10 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: An interesting video on the free rider problem in relation to voluntarism  (Read 3255 times)
State-God
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 670



View Profile
« on: January 24, 2013, 04:36:50 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37CEsB3NK5w" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37CEsB3NK5w</a>

I thought this was an interesting video, and does show that some AnCap's need to think more deeply about the physical realities of a voluntary society.

My critique's are such:

1. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) he takes into consideration the possibility of the local defense firms working together to ensure military equipment/training was readied for the possibility of a State invasion, along with contracts being signed saying that 'so-and-so' firms will gain permission to control employees of one of the other firms in an emergency situation. While such collabaration

2. Let's assume that he's 100% correct, and that there is no way for an Anarcho-Capitalist society to handle the free rider problem completely (if at all). Nonetheless, I would still argue that for all the danger of a State invading a Free Territory, the overall benefits of such a society well outweigh such dangers. Along with this, assuming that the State had a remotely democratic government, it's unlikely the populace would put up with the invasion of a clearly non-aggressive territory
Logged

"[In a Socialist Commonwealth] the wheels will turn, but will run to no effect." - Ludwig von Mises
Tear-Down-the-Wall
Mr. Edgar Friendly
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 434


Mother should I trust the government?


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2013, 07:36:42 PM »

Don't even need to watch the video to debunk him.

In a free society people are armed and armed well.

Why didn't Germany invade Switzerland even though they controlled all the territory around it? Because nearly all the citizens had guns and weren't afraid to use them.

In a voluntary society you have voluntary militias. I'm sure many of these militias would communicate, train, and organize. Then you have regularly armed citizens.

History shows us all invading armies are eventually defeated. If not by the outside, the inside hurts them too much to continue. The only way is to kill all the natives and if they're armed as well as you, that's a difficult campaign.

It could be done though, if you nuke everything.

The thing is the only reason to invade is to occupy and control resources. It's hard to do that if the whole area is a nuclear parking lot that nobody can go on.
Logged

This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.

You take the blue pill- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill- you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
State-God
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 670



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2013, 08:03:43 PM »

Don't even need to watch the video to debunk him.

In a free society people are armed and armed well.

Why didn't Germany invade Switzerland even though they controlled all the territory around it? Because nearly all the citizens had guns and weren't afraid to use them.

In a voluntary society you have voluntary militias. I'm sure many of these militias would communicate, train, and organize. Then you have regularly armed citizens.

History shows us all invading armies are eventually defeated. If not by the outside, the inside hurts them too much to continue. The only way is to kill all the natives and if they're armed as well as you, that's a difficult campaign.

It could be done though, if you nuke everything.

The thing is the only reason to invade is to occupy and control resources. It's hard to do that if the whole area is a nuclear parking lot that nobody can go on.

You're right that most people would have guns, and that many of them would be patriotically devoted to the idea of freedom- but most people, generally speaking, aren't highly motivated by ideology to the extent that they'd be willing to throw their lives down for it.

Quite the contrary- upon the reemergence of Statism within a territory, many people would find personal benefit in it as they used the newly found State powers to their own means.

Along with that, having some rifles and machine guns doesn't help you too much against an army with tanks, airplanes and other means of mechanized warfare. Mind, I'm not saying resistance would be impossible (the Viet Cong proved that), but resistance under such conditions of warfare requires the strong devotion both of the soldiers as well as the populace- a devotion that is only likely to emerge in a situation of kill-or-be-killed (or in the case of Vietnamese of practically having nothing left to lose).

Also mind, I'm not saying that resistance against a State invasion is impossible- we just have to realize it's very difficult.
Logged

"[In a Socialist Commonwealth] the wheels will turn, but will run to no effect." - Ludwig von Mises
Tear-Down-the-Wall
Mr. Edgar Friendly
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 434


Mother should I trust the government?


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2013, 07:20:11 AM »

You're right that most people would have guns, and that many of them would be patriotically devoted to the idea of freedom- but most people, generally speaking, aren't highly motivated by ideology to the extent that they'd be willing to throw their lives down for it.

Quite the contrary- upon the reemergence of Statism within a territory, many people would find personal benefit in it as they used the newly found State powers to their own means.

Along with that, having some rifles and machine guns doesn't help you too much against an army with tanks, airplanes and other means of mechanized warfare. Mind, I'm not saying resistance would be impossible (the Viet Cong proved that), but resistance under such conditions of warfare requires the strong devotion both of the soldiers as well as the populace- a devotion that is only likely to emerge in a situation of kill-or-be-killed (or in the case of Vietnamese of practically having nothing left to lose).

Also mind, I'm not saying that resistance against a State invasion is impossible- we just have to realize it's very difficult.

I think the people's urge to fight is high if it's their homeland. The Afgans did it against the Soviets and Americans. The Iraqis did it against the Americans. And they didn't have a country as they were in an occupied zones.

As for resistance to the state, look at Syria. People went from protesting in the streets, to getting shot at, to a rebellion, and finally to an all out war.
Logged

This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.

You take the blue pill- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill- you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
State-God
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 670



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2013, 07:34:28 AM »

Again, I agree that there would be *some* open rebellion. However, I think  we should take into consideration that, after a few generations, the people living with the Free Territory wouldn't all be hardcore ideologues like us- they would, instead, like voluntarism because it was the status quo. Sort of like how people in the 50's hated and feared Communists with a passion- rightly so- but had no real conception as to why other than that 'they were the enemy'.

A perfect example of this is Hong Kong. If asked whether they like how things are, most citizens would say yes- however, if asked about their opinions about minimum wage, government interference in business, and so on, we quickly find that most Hong Kong citizens are rather standard Democratic-Socialists, in spite of their claims to the contrary.

A similar situation will occur, I think, in the case of a State invasion. As long as the invading State doesn't put the populace in a situation of 'I have nothing left to lose' (again, like in Vietnam, in which case the State WOULD be facing a near 100% resisting populance). Instead, assuming that the State leaders are of remote intelligence, they would be much more likely to bribe the populace by setting up programs 'to help them', along with putting many intellectuals on the dole.

In short, a situation would soon emerge post-war of the populace slowly (again, it takes a few generations) beginning to believe in Statism again. A perfect example the video cites is the fact that the German high command ordered, during WW2, that soldiers not haphazardly ransack the native population of a conquered country. Along with this, soldiers were also given 5-6 months pay in advance, to splurge on the local economy.

All of this lead, quickly, to most occupied areas having fairly strong support for the Nazis, even if they didn't agree with all their actions.
Logged

"[In a Socialist Commonwealth] the wheels will turn, but will run to no effect." - Ludwig von Mises
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2013, 02:48:52 PM »

I thought this was an interesting video, and does show that some AnCap's need to think more deeply about the physical realities of a voluntary society.

My critique's are such:

1. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) he takes into consideration the possibility of the local defense firms working together to ensure military equipment/training was readied for the possibility of a State invasion, along with contracts being signed saying that 'so-and-so' firms will gain permission to control employees of one of the other firms in an emergency situation. While such collabaration

2. Let's assume that he's 100% correct, and that there is no way for an Anarcho-Capitalist society to handle the free rider problem completely (if at all). Nonetheless, I would still argue that for all the danger of a State invading a Free Territory, the overall benefits of such a society well outweigh such dangers. Along with this, assuming that the State had a remotely democratic government, it's unlikely the populace would put up with the invasion of a clearly non-aggressive territory


That is a 55 min video...   I will watch is sooner or later. 

I agree there will be free riders.  I don't think it is a big deal though.  The richer a company or individual becomes, the more they will spend to defend themselves.  I suspect the big companies in the big cities will be the primary funding for defensive actions.  They will want to defend their customers and suppliers, and even the farms.  They can't do business if everyone is dead, and it would be good for PR. 

By the way, the republic known as the USA has repeatedly meddled with Somalia.  They are still funding a war against what was a non-aggressive territory.  The government said it was to help them, to give them the gift of an oppressive government.  The people of the republic don't care.  They couldn't stop it if they did. 
Logged

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!