If in a free market a subisidized firm outcompetes a free one, then why is'nt it that in a free market for military services, the subsidized militaries of the rest of the world won't overthrow the private one?
How would a private military be subisidized?
He's asking how a free society would defend itself from a statist society.
Rather easily, history would suggest.
The key is to establish the newly created free society and it's relatively small defense forces in places where the states are weak and a relatively small force can defend itself and give the society a chance to survive and grow. As the free society grows it's ability to defend itself will increase. Also, the new society has to avoid any issues or conflicts with large powerful states. You must accept the reality that if you want freedom eventually you will have to face tyrrany. The best option is for those of us who want freedom is to pick the time and place. This is the main criteria for the Liberty Colony in it's selection process of a location.
Because foreign militaries do not provide a good.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
fakename: If in a free market a subisidized firm outcompetes a free one, then why is'nt it that in a free market for military services, the subsidized militaries of the rest of the world won't overthrow the private one?
If you have a statist society versus an anarchist society, who do you think will win? The country that sends soldiers involuntarily to combat or the society in which every member is armed to the teeth and will defend their liberty at any cost?
Think about it like this: it's like the USA reinvaded Iraq all over again, just that this time nobody would want the US imposing their will there and everybody would have access to rifles, RPGs, etc. Do you really think the US military, in all of its glory, would stand any chance short of nuking the whole country?
And since I can see you're itching to ask about nukes, don't you think private protection agencies would gather some nukes to establish themselves as legitimate protectors against "runaway" and "gangster" protection agencies?
"There is only one innate right, freedom (independence from being constrained by another's choice), insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in accordance with a universal law." - Immanuel Kant
krazy kaju: fakename: If in a free market a subisidized firm outcompetes a free one, then why is'nt it that in a free market for military services, the subsidized militaries of the rest of the world won't overthrow the private one? If you have a statist society versus an anarchist society, who do you think will win? The country that sends soldiers involuntarily to combat or the society in which every member is armed to the teeth and will defend their liberty at any cost? Think about it like this: it's like the USA reinvaded Iraq all over again, just that this time nobody would want the US imposing their will there and everybody would have access to rifles, RPGs, etc. Do you really think the US military, in all of its glory, would stand any chance short of nuking the whole country? And since I can see you're itching to ask about nukes, don't you think private protection agencies would gather some nukes to establish themselves as legitimate protectors against "runaway" and "gangster" protection agencies?
Again, the problem with hypothetical discussions. The U.S. Military has enormous resources and the financial backing and support of about 300 million people. To propose as of yet some non-existent free society could easily defeat it is ridiculous. The Liberty Colony as currently proposed has a goal to establish a free society starting with about 200 people and achieving that will take some real work. As for creating nuclear weapons in hypothetical fantasy land, piece of cake, out there in the real world a completely different story.
First, they wouldn't have much of a motivation to do so after a cost/benefit analysis. Second, their subsidy is not unlimited. You can't squeeze blood from a stone; eventually the people cannot be taxed or the currency inflated any further, and the military goes broke.
And their free-market opponents do not have a "private military". They have a populace armed to the teeth, inexpensive and easily obtainable defensive hardware, and who knows how many dozens or hundreds of decentralized insured and reinsured defence agencies, none of which can surrender in the name of the others.
Additionally, the state is fighting for an inherently divisive political goal, for which they must garner a substantial number of supporters in their own country. Once that support is lost, they face the possibility of rebellion at home, which they must fight with an increasingly weakening economy.
Also, why are we assuming a stateless country being attacked by states? It is far more likely that the stateless society will form within and among the statists via the countereconomy. In such a case, matters are made even more difficult for the state attackers because their enemies are mixed in amongst their supporters. And as the state's money becomes weaker and the countereconomy becomes stronger, they face the inevitability of their own employees defecting to the anti-statists. If a soldier can't buy a loaf of bread for his family with the government's ten million dollar bills, but he can readily get food from the underground free market, only the most fanatical will go to war against the underground free market.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall: First, they wouldn't have much of a motivation to do so after a cost/benefit analysis. Second, their subsidy is not unlimited. You can't squeeze blood from a stone; eventually the people cannot be taxed or the currency inflated any further, and the military goes broke. And their free-market opponents do not have a "private military". They have a populace armed to the teeth, inexpensive and easily obtainable defensive hardware, and who knows how many dozens or hundreds of decentralized insured and reinsured defence agencies, none of which can surrender in the name of the others. Additionally, the state is fighting for an inherently divisive political goal, for which they must garner a substantial number of supporters in their own country. Once that support is lost, they face the possibility of rebellion at home, which they must fight with an increasingly weakening economy. Also, why are we assuming a stateless country being attacked by states? It is far more likely that the stateless society will form within and among the statists via the countereconomy. In such a case, matters are made even more difficult for the state attackers because their enemies are mixed in amongst their supporters. And as the state's money becomes weaker and the countereconomy becomes stronger, they face the inevitability of their own employees defecting to the anti-statists. If a soldier can't buy a loaf of bread for his family with the government's ten million dollar bills, but he can readily get food from the underground free market, only the most fanatical will go to war against the underground free market.
It is always easy to beat real armies with hypothetical ones. At this point you have no army, you are not trying to create an army or even create any type of defensive network that would even challenge the weakest area in the world and yet you have already easily defeated the most powerful military ever created in the history of the world.
Maxliberty: It is always easy to beat real armies with hypothetical ones.
It is always easy to beat real armies with hypothetical ones.
Are you trying to tell me that I'm not allowed to answer a hypothetical question with a hypothetical response?
At this point you have no army, you are not trying to create an army or even create any type of defensive network that would even challenge the weakest area in the world and yet you have already easily defeated the most powerful military ever created in the history of the world.
I dont need to "create" any such army to demonstrate an economic probability. I posit that the state will eventually become so burdensome that people will start to choose counter-economic alternatives in their own interest. That has been the end of every state in history; there is no reason to assume it won't be the case with the states of today.
Assuming as in the hypothetical which was presented in the original post that such a thing as free market defense exists, people will most likely choose that because it is bound to be the most efficient. In that case, the end of the existing state is inevitable, whether the market defense alternative survives perpetually or not. And that is true whether the case is an established free-market country with physical borders, or an agorist movement within a current state-controlled area.
MacFall:I posit that the state will eventually become so burdensome that people will start to choose counter-economic alternatives in their own interest. That has been the end of every state in history; there is no reason to assume it won't be the case with the states of today.
That may end the current state but does not mean that the current state will not simply be divided into smaller more manageable states. The collapse of a government does not result in a free society.
MacFall:Assuming as in the hypothetical which was presented in the original post that such a thing as free market defense exists, people will most likely choose that because it is bound to be the most efficient. In that case, the end of the existing state is inevitable, whether the market defense alternative survives perpetually or not. And that is true whether the case is an established free-market country with physical borders, or an agorist movement within a current state-controlled area.
Except you leave out one important part and that is the state may be substantially more powerful than you and crush your movement before it ever starts. A free market defense has to be capable of defending its clients otherwise it is of no use. You can have a very efficient army of 10 but that is no match for a disorganized army of 10,000. So your economic theory must consider this to be of any use.
Who says there will be any "blackwater" equivalents?
We know what happened in Iraq, a multi-million dollar tank can be eliminated by a few hundered dollars worth of hardware. Also, see how difficult it is to oppress an insurgency when all of the