[Rei Murasame]

While the Spanish anarchists in Catalonia were ultimately defeated by Franco's forces(with the help of the other fascist powers), they did put together quite a fighting force to be reckoned with. Same with the Ukrainian Black Army. Also note that the Zapatistas have maintained their hold on Chiapas for nearly two decades.

Those were all left-anarchists though, so I assume that their fighters were organised as being a precondition of membership in the unions from the start though, right?

It seems like it would be completely different from anarcho-capitalism.

[mikema63]

Any comments on my scenario?

(sorry in advance if you have already addressed it.)

[MrAnthrope]

Yes, libertarian ideas might work, but evidence and history often show us that they never worked.

"...often show us they never worked."?

Anyway, because the majority and/or the powerful have always enslaved the minorities and/or the weak, thru governments, that doesn't make it right. Whether it works or not, non-aggression, strict accountability and property rights are the only moral choices.

[Pants-of-dog]

Anyway, because the majority and/or the powerful have always enslaved the minorities and/or the weak, thru governments, that doesn't make it right. Whether it works or not, non-aggression, strict accountability and property rights are the only moral choices.

How do you plan to prevent the majority and/or the powerful from enslaving the minorities and/or the weak (through governments or any method) with only non-aggression, strict accountability and property rights as your tools?

[michael3]

"How do you plan to prevent the majority and/or the powerful from enslaving the minorities and/or the weak (through governments or any method) with only non-aggression, strict accountability and property rights as your tools?"

Well, our friend certainly can't do it with 'property rights', because that is the tangible essence of the usurpation of the world by the 'majority and/or the powerful'.

Other than a great change of heart by the human race, a great Crisis that threatens the whole human race, it probably won't happen.

[Paradigm]

Those were all left-anarchists though, so I assume that their fighters were organised as being a precondition of membership in the unions from the start though, right?

It seems like it would be completely different from anarcho-capitalism.

Yeah, you didn't specify that it had to be anarcho-capitalist. Personally, I've always thought the closest approximation to anarcho-capitalism was Sicily under the control of Cosa Nostra. So if you want to see an anarcho-capitalist army, I think the mafia is probably what you need to be looking at.

[mikema63]

Sure if the mafia isn't involved in black market trading (since there aren't any illegal good) and cant force you to be a customer as well as not having a monopoly then sure.

[Kman]

Has anyone ever created a disciplined and technologically competent fighting force without the use of a state or state-like entity? The way this topic has gone is all well and good, but I think no one has actually asked that simple question.

Sports teams? When you play on a football team your are doing some of the same type of teamwork that takes place during wartime, you communicate fast and you position yourself to help your teammates and defeat the ''enemy''. I dont think it is that hard to imagine that if people can organize teams that resemble combat squads that they would be able to organize a real combat squad.

[MrAnthrope]

How do you plan to prevent the majority and/or the powerful from enslaving the minorities and/or the weak (through governments or any method) with only non-aggression, strict accountability and property rights as your tools?

I don't believe it can be prevented once a population has grown to a point that a minority can no longer intimidate a majority with their sting. The moral ambiguity of the majority population allows and accepts enslavement. I believe "moral" people, for want of a better description -- those who respect property rights and believe initiating force against their neighbors is wrong -- will always be vulnerable, because, by nature, they mind their own business. They give the benefit of the doubt to the morally ambiguous with respect to moral behavior, even as these people are organizing into a "government" and declaring imminent domain with respect to sovereign authority.

I know some will take issue with my equating morality with libertarian principles. But, personally, it is beyond my comprehension that ordinary people (as opposed to people who aspire to to be their masters) believe it is okay to use deadly force on their neighbors to force majority-approved behavior and seize their neighbors' assets to apply to majority-approved goals. For me, it demonstrates that man either has no natural moral compass -- i.e. absent a moral reference, robbing or killing your neighbor is just a utilitarian decision -- or it is easily overridden by indoctrination or mob influence.

[Eran]

How do you plan to prevent the majority and/or the powerful from enslaving the minorities and/or the weak (through governments or any method) with only non-aggression, strict accountability and property rights as your tools?

How would the majority and/or the powerful enslave the minorities and/or the weak if non-aggression and property rights are protected?

[Pants-of-dog]

By ignoring the NAP and property rights.

Since there is no method to enforce the NAP or property rights, and since they don't magically enforce themselves, how do you protect these two things?

[Eran]

How does the Constitution help protect us from government excess?

After all, there is no force to stop a government that chooses to ignore the Constitution, right?

In either case, the answer is that if the public at large supports a principle limiting the use of power (NAP or the Constitution), societal institutions will evolve to address abuse of power by the criminal minority.

In a society based on NAP and property rights, the minority/natives will be able to appeal to right-protection organisations (which would be ultimately supported by the majority of the population) against those who oppress them.

[Pants-of-dog]

How does the Constitution help protect us from government excess?

By enumerating certain powers to different sectors of gov't and society.

After all, there is no force to stop a government that chooses to ignore the Constitution, right?

Actually, there are. The US Constitution specifically describes a gov't that is set up in such a way that it cannot unilaterally ignore the Constitution without making itself illegitimate.

In either case, the answer is that if the public at large supports a principle limiting the use of power (NAP or the Constitution), societal institutions will evolve to address abuse of power by the criminal minority.

In a society based on NAP and property rights, the minority/natives will be able to appeal to right-protection organisations (which would be ultimately supported by the majority of the population) against those who oppress them.

The difference is that we can clearly see and describe the way in which we ensure that the US Const. protects US citizens from gov't excess. W cannot do the same with the NAP and property rights.

[EastCoastAmerican]

And yet the Constitution is ignored in times of people, often with the consent of the populace. The PATRIOT Act still exists, despite its threat to the 4th Amendment. The NDAA has the power to deny American citizens the right to a fair trial if they're "suspected of terrorism." And for quite some time, freedom of religion did not extend to the indigenous faiths of Native Americans. The Ojibwe tribe of Minnesota saw its priests sent to mental asylums simply for not converting to Christianity, and the government approved of boarding schools to "convert" them to their Western civilization.

The majority is more than willing to sacrifice their principles of liberty if they believe it will grant them safety and security.

[Eran]

By enumerating certain powers to different sectors of gov't and society.

You are missing my point (on purpose?)

How does the Constitution protect us from government officials who choose to ignore it?

Actually, there are. The US Constitution specifically describes a gov't that is set up in such a way that it cannot unilaterally ignore the Constitution without making itself illegitimate.

True.

In just the same way that the majority and/or powerful couldn't enslave minorities (necessarily violating the NAP and their property rights) without making themselves illegitimate.

There is a good parallel between the NAP in a free society and the Constitution in our current one. In both cases, the principles enshrined define what would be considered legitimate and what wouldn't. And just as a Constitution-violating President's being considered illegitimate is enough to deter such action (despite the vast military power at his disposal), so an NAP-violating organisation in a free society being considered illegitimate would be enough to deter such action (even more so because no single organisation is likely to have the level of force domination enjoyed by the US armed forces).

The difference is that we can clearly see and describe the way in which we ensure that the US Const. protects US citizens from gov't excess. We cannot do the same with the NAP and property rights.

First, a democracy need not have a written constitution to be stable and liberal. Consider the British constitution. There is no written document that prevents an ambitious PM from using a Parliamentary majority to suspend all future elections and declare martial law. No "clear way" that such a move can be ensured against.

Second, there are ample examples of clearly-written Constitutions being ignored by government officials. Clearly, it isn't the nature of the written document that prevents such events.

[ingliz]

No "clear way" that such a move can be ensured against

Legally, only the Queen has the power to dismiss the Government at any time and for any reason or for none.

[Eran]

Since at least the Glorious Revolution, the Queen's powers are dictated by Parliament.

But that is a moot point. What if the Queen conspired with the PM?

[Pants-of-dog]

You are missing my point (on purpose?)

How does the Constitution protect us from government officials who choose to ignore it?

Again, by not giving them the power to do so. How is an individual going to, for example, get rid of the separation of the judicial and executive branches?

True.

In just the same way that the majority and/or powerful couldn't enslave minorities (necessarily violating the NAP and their property rights) without making themselves illegitimate.

No. Not in the same way. There is no actual anything stopping someone from doing so in Galt's Gulch. In the real world, there are actual blocks.

There is a good parallel between the NAP in a free society and the Constitution in our current one. In both cases, the principles enshrined define what would be considered legitimate and what wouldn't. And just as a Constitution-violating President's being considered illegitimate is enough to deter such action (despite the vast military power at his disposal), so an NAP-violating organisation in a free society being considered illegitimate would be enough to deter such action (even more so because no single organisation is likely to have the level of force domination enjoyed by the US armed forces).

No. You seem to think that the only thing that enforces the Constitution is public opinion. This is not the case. The Constitution also creates specific laws and bodies that enforce the Constitution. The NAP does not.

First, a democracy need not have a written constitution to be stable and liberal. Consider the British constitution. There is no written document that prevents an ambitious PM from using a Parliamentary majority to suspend all future elections and declare martial law. No "clear way" that such a move can be ensured against.

Second, there are ample examples of clearly-written Constitutions being ignored by government officials. Clearly, it isn't the nature of the written document that prevents such events.

I never suggested that a democracy need have a written constitution to be stable and liberal. Nor did I suggest that a constitution (I am going to write Bill of Rights or BoR from now on. I never spell constitution right the first or second time) is perfect in preventing actions against it.

The UK has had a BoR since 1689. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 This document guarantees regular elections.

[Eran]

You seem to think that the only thing that enforces the Constitution is public opinion. This is not the case. The Constitution also creates specific laws and bodies that enforce the Constitution. The NAP does not.

First, the Constitution is just words on paper. Written (and unwritten) constitutions have been trampled time and time throughout history.

So obviously it isn't the Constitution or any specific laws or bodies that ensures the stability of liberal democracy.

Second, why wouldn't the NAP lead to specific laws? It could do so in one of two ways.

First, through a Common Law-like process of organic growth, with judge-made law being accepted as precedence.
Second, through explicit adoption by property owners and through voluntary contracts.

Either way, society would create legal standards, rules and precedents based on which actions can be judged to determine their legitimacy.

The UK has had a BoR since 1689. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 This document guarantees regular elections.

The British Bill of Rights has no privileged status. It was adopted as an Act of Parliament, and could be repealed just as easily. In theory.

[Pants-of-dog]

First, the Constitution is just words on paper. Written (and unwritten) constitutions have been trampled time and time throughout history.

So obviously it isn't the Constitution or any specific laws or bodies that ensures the stability of liberal democracy.

It is not the only thing, and I never claimed it was. I am just pointing out that a BoR has inherent protections against its violation, while the NAP does not.

Second, why wouldn't the NAP lead to specific laws? It could do so in one of two ways.

First, through a Common Law-like process of organic growth, with judge-made law being accepted as precedence.
Second, through explicit adoption by property owners and through voluntary contracts.

Either way, society would create legal standards, rules and precedents based on which actions can be judged to determine their legitimacy.

Because you have no means of enforcement.

There is nothing stopping people from ignoring Common law, or judge's dictates, or contracts, or the property rights of others. Society can create anything it wants, but without some sort of way of keeping counter-cultural bastards from being thieves, none of it matters.

The British Bill of Rights has no privileged status. It was adopted as an Act of Parliament, and could be repealed just as easily. In theory.

Are you seriously comparing the theoretically worst possible scenario of a liberal democracy with the theoretically best case scenario of a libertarian model? Because it is only in the best case scenario that everyone magically agrees not to violate the NAP.