Open my reply to op
I’m not brushing it off. I’m just saying it’s not as simple as another country just declaring they own you.
Discussion
We are not in that thread, we are in a different thread.
Oh my bad. Too many convos to track. But yeah I was trying to get him to reach the conclusion that these large groups of “foreigners” would not have anything to gain by senselessly attacking you. Instead, they’d want to enslave you. If it was an individual foreigner, they’d want to maybe steal your property. Defending against one or two “foreigners” is more doable and you don’t need a standing army or tyrannical government for that.
I don't ever find the idea that "we need government" compelling. What i always get stuck on is that warlords can gain from enslaving/taxing people, and the only thing that has ever stopped them is either 1) other warlords, 2) unusual technological situations where rag-tag defensive groups have a temporary advantage, or 3) areas where the targets are too spread out, for example a few random mountain men scattered in the wilderness.
In the future the Soveriegn Individual thesis might play out, but until that happens, a highly populated anarchist societiy ("Ancapistan") is unlikely to last long.
This does not mean the state is good or just in any way.
And none of this denies that it's possible for an individual to do a lot to free themselves.
This article helped me refine my views on these things, and also contains a pretty solid prediction about the coming decentralisation of the US.
https://www.anarchonomicon.com/p/after-the-state-the-coming-of-neo
