If a stateless, anarchic society were to emerge it would surely be conquered by a foreign state. Naturally, this can be broken down into at least two levels of reasoning. The first is the question of whether a state would actually choose to attack a stateless society. The second is the question of how successful such an attack would be.

Regarding the first question, it is clear that a reasonably strong and aggressive state (of which there have always been–and continue to be–many) would choose to invade a stateless territory relatively soon after its birth. There are several (somewhat inter-related) reasons for this.

First, states exist to expropriate resources. The state, as Franz Oppenheimer famously noted, obtains resources by the “political means” (i.e. expropriation) rather than by the “economic means” (i.e. voluntary exchange). The predominant reason some states refrain from invading their neighbors is the existence of a relatively organized and effective standing military force controlled by the central state. For at least some of these potential aggressors, the existence of a territory reasonably endowed with natural resources and not protected by a central state would be simply too much to resist. Even if the only resource were habitable land the lure would still be too strong.

Second, states would see a successful stateless society as a destabilizing influence on their own regimes. Even if an aggressive state were not motivated to invade by lust for resources, it seems likely that one or more states would still attack the anarchist society (and attempt to annex the territory) if only to wipe any hopes of a stateless society from their own subjects’ minds. Consider that one of the most common arguments given by those opposed to statelessness is that it simply can’t work; there’s no successful example of it in the modern world. If an anarchist society were to emerge, the resultant peace and prosperity for the members of that society would forever invalidate the argument that anarchy can’t work. Those who long for freedom around the world would suddenly have a working example, something to strive for and seek. Furthermore, the more vibrant and prosperous economy of the stateless society would cause a brain drain for many states as their most talented individuals left to seek more reward in the stateless territory. Such eventualities would be so threatening to powerful states that they would waste no time in crushing such a society.

The final primary reason one or more states would choose to invade the stateless territory is the state’s distorted cost-benefit analysis. The political elites in control of a state are able to shift most of the cost of conflict onto the state’s hapless subjects, thus making a military attack on a stateless society far more likely than if the political elites had to bear the costs themselves. The decision-makers can force the tax payers to cover the financial costs of war and can even conscript subjects to do the fighting. Even in the absence of conscription, the state is able to bring to bear its powerful propaganda machine to convince large numbers of ‘patriots’ to go off and fight for the state. All of this makes the decision to launch an attack artificially easy for the state’s rulers.

The second question is whether a state would succeed in conquering the stateless society once the decision is made. There appear to be at least a few reasons the state would be successful.

First, states are able to forcibly acquire and concentrate resources. Consider the effort and resources that go into state weapons programs, especially the development of nuclear weapons. In less than five years, the U.S. government developed and deployed nuclear weapons. The government was able to use its power of taxation to spend over $20 billion (adjusted for inflation) and employ 130,000 people to accomplish this task. It used its power of eminent domain to construct the interstate highway system to facilitate military transportation. It used taxation and the lack of a need to maximize efficiency to amass a vast arsenal of tanks, planes, ships, bombs, artillery, firearms, and more. It used the power of conscription to and propaganda to force millions into military service. The stateless society, on the other hand, would be defended merely by decentralized private defense forces funded by voluntary payments or donations. Unfortunately, the anarchists wouldn’t stand a chance.

Second, states have a long history of military organization and expertise (especially a state that would go to the trouble of attacking an anarchist society). It must be noted that not just any state would initiate a war against a free society. The kinds of states that are aggressive enough to do such a thing are the kinds of states that devote a lot of time and resources to military matters. They have long traditions and well-developed operational procedures. They have extensive, high-tech command and control systems. They have officers who have studied war-making and are versed in a variety of tactics and strategies. In comparison, the stateless defense forces would have little history and real-life experience on which to draw. They would be made up of a variety of independent defense firms or volunteer organizations with no coordinated and standardized way of doing things. In addition, if the anarchists didn’t have very long to prepare, they would be at the mercy of price-gouging weapons manufacturers looking to take advantage of the defenders’ urgent needs.

Another point is that the state is in a good position to subvert the anarchist society, possibly even eliminating the need for an armed invasion. The state’s ability to expropriate and concentrate wealth from its subjects makes it much easier for it to bribe the top players in key industries (like banking, education, and the media). We know from historical experience that successful business figures are often quick to use the regulatory power of states to better position themselves and harm their competitors. We can expect a significant degree of this to occur with anarchist business owners and foreign states. If a state succeeds in dramatically influencing industries like education and media, it may be able to undermine the very anarchist nature of the stateless society and cause large parts of it to return to statism and seek the protection of a neighboring state.

Finally, the anarchist forces would be highly constrained by the need to avoid harming innocents, while the invading state would have no such constraint. The aggressors could engage in massive and indiscriminate bombing campaigns, perhaps even including weapons of mass destruction (keeping in mind the attacking state may not be interested in controlling territory or exploiting resources but rather in destroying an anarchist society before it could lead the state’s subjects to start contemplating statelessness).

It seems clear that a stateless society would indeed by attacked by one or more states and that the attack would be successful in either subduing and occupying the territory or outright destroying the society. One need only look at the history of the Russian Civil War (1917-1923), during which the anarchists (under Makhno) were immediately attacked by the Red Army, and the resistance was destroyed.

Please feel free to react to this in the comments in whatever way you’d like. I’d appreciate any feedback. The other side’s opening salvo will be posted as soon as they submit it.

And, of course, states like the U.S. have a vested interest in ensuring that Somalia doesn’t become too peaceful prior to the establishment of a strong central state, because such a society would be highly threatening to the illusion that the state is necessary for peace and prosperity.

But more importantly, those on the left are out in force defending the morality of the state’s using violence to compel certain actions on the part of business owners who have not aggressed against anyone. That’s right: they’re saying that partial slavery is okay. They’re saying that, because they don’t like the way some people choose to peacefully (if unpleasantly) use their property, violence may be employed to force them to use it in a different way. They’re saying you don’t have a right to be a bigot.

Well, you do have that right as a human being. And others have the right to boycott, shun, and ostracize you.

I don’t have much to say that hasn’t already been said in places like these:
Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act: Was he right?
Defend the Scoundrels, Rand!
Which Institution is More Enlightened?

But let me be very clear about this. If you use violence or the threat thereof to compel someone to provide goods or services to someone else, you are an aggressor and a criminal. If you support such criminal actions, well, let’s just say you’ve got some remedial work to do in the area of ethics.

He’s out of federal captivity now, but is under house arrest and facing potentially serious charges for his terrible crime of filming a federal goon harassing another innocent person. George is now seeking legal and financial assistance in his fight against this injustice. See here and here.

It would be nice if George is able to not only get these ridiculous charges dropped but also succeed in suing these cretins for their violent actions. Unfortunately, such suits rarely work. One of the ways that a free society could deal with aggressors and other anti-social individuals who refuse to participate in voluntary arbitration and restitution procedures is through ostracism: simply refusing to associate or do business with the offenders, including not selling them groceries, not giving them loans, not providing them with utilities, etc. Given this, and knowing that George is a fan of ostracism, I think it would be great if someone was able to identify the aggressing U.S. Marshalls (some are visible in photos taken at the time) in this instance and launch a campaign to publicly shame and ostracize them. Let’s show the state that its aggression will not be tolerated by civilized society.

Summed up nicely with this line toward the end: “…it’s beyond me why anyone would allow a monopoly on something as important as protection.”

While productive enterprises come into or go out of existence because of voluntary support or its absence, a ruling class never comes to power because there is a demand for it, nor does it abdicate when abdication is demonstrably demanded. One cannot say by any stretch of the imagination that homesteaders, producers, savers and contractors have demanded their expropriation. They must be coerced into accepting it, and this proves conclusively that the exploitation firm is not in demand at all. Nor can one say that a ruling class can be brought down by abstaining from transactions with it in the same way as one can bring down a productive enterprise. For the ruling class acquires its income through nonproductive and noncontractual transactions and thus is unaffected by boycotts. Rather, what makes the rise of an exploitation firm possible, and what alone can in turn bring it down is a specific state of public opinion or, in Marxist terminology, a specific state of class consciousness.

An exploiter creates victims, and victims are potential enemies. It is possible that this resistance can be lastingly broken down by force in the case of a group of men exploiting another group of roughly the same size. However, more than force is needed to expand exploitation over a population many times its own size. For this to happen, a firm must also have public support. A majority of the population must accept the exploitative actions as legitimate. This acceptance can range from active enthusiasm to passive resignation. But it must be acceptance in the sense that a majority must have given up the idea of actively or passively resisting any attempt to enforce nonproductive and noncontractual property acquisitions. The class consciousness must be low, undeveloped and fuzzy. Only as long as this state of affairs lasts is there still room for an exploitative firm to prosper even if no actual demand for it exists. Only if and insofar as the exploited and expropriated develop a clear idea of their own situation and are united with other members of their class through an ideological movement which gives expression to the idea of a classless society where all exploitation is abolished, can the power of the ruling class be broken. Only if, and insofar as, a majority of the exploited public becomes consciously integrated into such a movement and accordingly displays a common outrage over all nonproductive or noncontractual property acquisitions, shows a contempt for everyone who engages in such acts, and deliberately contributes nothing to help make them successful (not to mention actively trying to obstruct them), can its power be brought to crumble.

But I think a more important point for the general case is that a free society, unencumbered by destructive taxation and regulation, would be extremely wealthy and highly versatile. Such a society would have people and firms that would have total mastery over information gathering and would know about a foreign power’s weapons plans in short order. The idea that a wealthy, free, and fiercely independent people would not spontaneously organize to prevent the development or use of such a weapon is absurd. Not to mention that a society that had eliminated the state or reduced it to the point that it was not engaging in military adventures (and the resultant weapons development) would not even represent a threat meriting the creation of a civilization-endangering weapon by a foreign state.

But, some will say, what about the Apollo Program? What about all the discoveries that happen at places like the LHC? What about the achievements of the U.S. federal labs? What about all the university science funded by the government? Aren’t these worthwhile advances? Wouldn’t many of these things be impossible without violent exploitation? Well, to these people I would simply ask: What might have been?

What might have been the course of scientific progress in the U.S. if the state had not spent the past century confiscating untold billions of dollars from private individuals and directing it in the way that it did? Well, we know that all that money (all things being equal) would have been directed toward market-demanded production. Some would have gone toward privately-conducted science. In fact, without government crowding, there would have been quite a bit more private science, and private science is responsive to what consumers actually want. State science has only a rough approximation of this in the form of the pressure of public opinion.

For all we know, market-driven scientific progress could well have far exceeded what we’ve ended up with. Maybe some scientific knowledge and technologies we have now wouldn’t exist. But other discoveries–again, more closely-aligned with consumer demand–may have been made that would have resulted in an overall higher standard of living than we currently enjoy. In fact, that’s likely. With only a pale imitation of the cost-control pressures of the market, government science will tend to be far less efficient, solving problems and developing new technologies in much more round-about and resource-intensive ways than market-driven science. So, no, we probably wouldn’t have had an Apollo Program, that expensive and embarrassing instance of international “sword fighting” (if you know what I mean). Rather, the natural pressures of the market may have resulted in private, competing firms developing advanced, low-cost methods of reaching orbit and extracting commercially valuable resources from the moon, Mars, asteroids, etc. And we probably wouldn’t have the LHC. Instead, perhaps companies in fields as diverse as transportation, computing, communications, and medical technology would have developed a variety of cheaper and more effective ways of probing the fundamental particles and forces of reality in search of new technologies for the products demanded by their customers.

And it all would have been done through peaceful interaction among free people seeking to profit by providing one another with value rather than by violence of a parasitic political class exploiting a productive population in order to score political points.

The question is not, “How could we have X,Y, and Z without the state?” The question is, “In the absence of violent, inefficient, and politically driven state science, what might have been?”