WHITE PEOPLE

 

BLACK PEOPLE

WHITE PEOPLE

 

Woo! :dance:

 

MEXICAN PEOPLE!

a troll :wacky:

 

http://www.google.cl/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_esCL335CL335&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=WendyGirl33

 

She's a internet forum whore.

Okay on the question of how an anarcho-capitalist society would defend its territory;

 

Take into consideration the reasons nation-states have for invading other lands -

 

1. They are attempting to expand their tax-base (increase population)

2. They are attempting to gain control of valuable natural resources

3. They are attempting to wipe out an enemy/opponent

 

I can't really think of a scenario where an anarchist territory would be more valuable to a nation-state under their rule, than left alone. The reasons are econonomic -

 

1. In an anarchist society, money would be backed by an element (something that cannot be printed or reproduced, like gold or silver). Forcing every individual in the anarchy to switch to a new currency would be very difficult and counterproductive. As Josh said, because there isn't a central military or capital city and the anarchy has no leadership, subjugating the population would require a long-fought war of destruction and confiscation. At the end of it all, you'd basically have destroyed the whole place before you can extract any value from it.

 

Invading another nation-state, on the other hand, is very simple - the tax collection apparatus already exists in the form of local governments and paper currency. The population is domesticated, being used to a government, and more than likely all their weapons would have already been confiscated anyway.

 

2. The question of natural resources... I suppose a country would like to gain control of them and use them, but remember that there is always a cost to extracting the resource - mining, deforesting, etc. The anarchist territory would have already placed a value on the resource, and would have already implemented competitive means to access it - competing corporations would be working day and night to provide the resource at the lowest possible cost to consumers. In general, it's economically non-feasible to go in with a military and socialize the resource, because that would only increase its cost from where it was priced in the free-market. It's like going into the Dollar General Store with a gang of thugs to steal all the trinkets there, and risk injury and death, when you could far more easily just buy all the crap legitimately.

 

3. Without an "official" foreign policy, anarchist territories would be neutral. They would trade with all, and exclude no-one from entry. So it's unlikely anyone would care enough to exterminate the population for the sins of their non-existent government.

absolutely!

You are all communists. :escaping:

great, thanks! :D

You are all communists. :escaping:

 

Collectivists! It's when you're a capitalist-individualist, but then when a rainy day comes, you freak out and turn into a communist. ;)