Would a stateless society be conquered?
Would a stateless society be conquered? Yes. At least, that's the devil's advocate position I'm arguing as part of the Mises Academy course I'm taking, The Economics of Private Legal and Defense Services. It's being taught by the always enlightening Bob Murphy, and he requires the students to participate in an online debate of a relevant topic. Each side in this debate is composed of a team of three people who are required to submit an opening statement, followed by five questions for the other side, and concluding with a closing argument. I thought it would be fun and beneficial to argue for a position I don't actually believe. As a former minarchist (and having debated many minarchists and statists over the years), I'm well aware of some of the reasons given for why an anarchist society would quickly be conquered by one of the world's many states. I thought I would blog the various phases of this debate. Below is my team's opening statement/argument.
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.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
September 4th, 2010 - 02:39
One thing that jumps out at me is the bit about the kind of state that’s likely to attack being a country with a strong military tradition and a history of aggression. The problem is, policy making circles in such countries are plagued with the problems that normally attach to hierarchies — the filtering out of data that would show the prospects for victory in a dim light, the inability to understand unconventional warfare, etc. It’s easy to imagine an aggressive, militaristic country like the U.S., attempting to apply warfighting doctrines largely irrelevant to subduing a stateless society, or even such a country’s Army War College developing effective and appropriate doctrines only to have them sabotaged by the military bureaucracy the same way John Robb describes 4GW doctrines being sabotaged by the chain of command.
September 4th, 2010 - 06:26
Yeah, I thought about that, but I figured I’d throw it out there and see how the other side dealt with it. Thanks for your thoughts, Kevin, and keep up the great work!
September 4th, 2010 - 15:38
Well, I have to disagree with you. With the exception of judicious usage of WMDs, id est, Nukes, chemical weapons and germ warfare, An anarchist society could easily win against a well-trained and well funded military force. if the stateless society was in the current United States of America. of the more than 300 million people, in America, over 90 million of them, own at least one gun. Now let’s say only half of them, could effectively use those guns, in their possession, that’s still more than 45 million people, that’s more than the entire U.S. Military. Also it is incredibly easy to make various high explosives, and use them to make booby traps, that will kill/maim the invading soldiers. Also, you have to consider that things like this have been done before. Look at the Soviet’s invasion of Afghanistan, they were pushed back. Look at how Vietnam was for American soldiers and Marines. And looks at the current quagmire we’re stuck in, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Guerrilla Warfare, allows, a outgunned group of people, to take on a larger, better trained, and better supplied military. Also you have to consider that we would have the home advantage as we would most likely have the support of most, if not all of the population, and, would know the terrain better. If America were to become a stateless society, and then was invaded, by let’s say China, we could still kick their asses, with the only exception being, that they didn’t care at all about leaving the land habitable, and the resources usable, and just used massive amounts of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. However that is incredibly unlikely, as even if they’re only interested in destroying a stateless society, to prevent their own citizen’s from trying it, do you really think, that any nation would render a massive expanse of land, and resources unusable, simply for that reason? If they could, they would conquer us, and use the land and resources for their own population.
September 4th, 2010 - 15:53
I tend to agree with you, Duane. Remember, I’m just playing devil’s advocate here
I’m looking forward to the other team’s opening argument, which I will also post on my blog.
September 4th, 2010 - 17:11
Ah I see. Well, I’m looking forward to seeing what they say too, since I”m rather curious as to what they will come up with.
September 4th, 2010 - 22:21
Just a thought, but aren’t you ASSUMING that a stateless society would have little or no military experience? It seems to me that any society that had no central, government controlled, military would put an utmost importance on making sure they had the best training and military weapons systems that they could. The reason is that, not being publicly educated, they would have the foresight to understand the “threat” they posed to the various organized states and would prepare for the inevitable attacks. They would hire retired military of those other countries (veterans often being poorly compensated after their service ends) and while not forcing the residents of the stateless society to be trained for combat, they would impress the need for such training. Residents, knowing that the society would only be as strong as the weakest link and that no one would be protecting them or their families for “free,” would easily see to it that they took classes in hand to hand combat, fire arms, military tactics, and all purchase automated defense systems well before any attack were to come. That takes care of the price gouging contractors (who would have contracts written up and signed well before there was a need- much like insurance), or weapons salesmen.
I guess the real question is how long this stateless society has been in existence. If it just pops up one day with a few thousand inhabitants and are immediately attacked, yeah, stick a fork in ‘em. If they’ve been “allowed” to exist for even 5-10 years, I’d say they would be well on their way to becoming their own deterrent through preparation.
I probably could have written that a little more clearly, but I hope you get my drift.
September 5th, 2010 - 00:35
Ha, yes, I’m making quite a few assumptions. Don’t want to make the other side’s argument for them. I agree that a large proportion of people in a free society would be pretty well-armed and have some knowledge of self-defense. I hadn’t thought about security firms in the stateless society trying to hire retired military from other countries. That’s a great point. But of course, any actual stateless society would emerge in one way or another from populations subject to existing states, so there would a wealth of home-grown military experience, and it wouldn’t even be limited to just the old retired guys. And yes, there would definitely be some long term contracts involved to minimize the effect of price-gouging. But on the other hand, price-gouging is really just a resource allocation signal, and other suppliers would quickly jump into the game to undercut the gougers and earn plenty of profit at the same time.