If the military is removed, what would replace it?
By - ItIsntComplicated
What do you think needs replacing exactly?
Private security and the right to bear arms could do the job of protecting individual rights perfectly fine.
>What do you think needs replacing exactly?
The ability to deter and repel an invading foreign military. The foreign military will invade to capture wealth and resources which will be abundant. Read some history.
>Private security and the right to bear arms could do the job of protecting individual rights perfectly fine.
Not even close. If the Chinese commander's tank is parked in your drive way, he is living in your house, and fucking your wife and daughter. Your rights have been violated. The fact that you and your 6 buddies and the 20 soldiers you hired red dawn the invading army for 4 years and they leave with what they came for is not a victory for you and your family.
Epic response bro really got me there
Glad to be of service.
Your service is honored here.
Libertarians, particularly ancaps, always rush to "Right to bear arms" with these kinds of questions, and I think that's only half the equation. Yes, I think locally organized and funded militias can make up the bulk of military defense, but a force like that against a modern, national military is basically the last 20 years of Afghanistan, and I'd rather not live in a country like that.
Citizen soldiery does work, it's worked at least as far back as hoplites in Ancient Greece. The problem is militaries have only gotten more advanced and complicated as technology has progressed. The factories to build highly advanced machines whose sole purpose is combat, the training to use all of these machines, the logistical nightmare to keep everything fueled, fed, and supplied. Tanks, jets, trucks, anti-air systems, cruise missiles, anti-tank systems, reconnaissance vehicles and equipment, and all of the fuel and munitions that go unto them. Your average modern hoplite/minuteman may be able to afford a modern rifle, body armor, related kit, and a 3-day assault pack, MAYBE modern night vision, but I doubt he'll be able to afford $78,000 per javelin missile, not to mention the thing that shoots said $78,000 missile. Modern militaries adapted quickly to counter asymmetric threats such as IEDs, and even then they sustained significantly less casualties than the militias they were fighting.
In short, if you're not going to have a government funded military, you basically have two options: Militias or mercenaries. I believe the answer is between those two. Individual towns or local areas could agree to pool resources to purchase advanced anti-armor weaponry and train select individuals on how to operate them, and use said equipment to defend their immediate area. A town may not be able to afford a detachment of tanks or chalk of attack helicopters, but they may be able to afford the systems to detect and shoot down those vehicles in a cost effective manner. Private mercenary armies would definitely flourish in Ancapistan, and a town paying a subscription service for full time professional soldiers to guard and defend their town sounds reasonable. This service and be broken down to a local security force agreeing to defend individual neighborhoods or houses. Anarchy doesn't mean local voluntary organization isn't allowed.
Personally, I'm far from ancap, so I don't see a small, strictly controlled, professional military force meant to operate the big toys as unreasonable. But this professional force should work in tandem with voluntary minutemen who purchase their own equipment and organize and train themselves.
You dont fight a large conventional force by haphazardly pooling together another conventional force, you use unconventional warfare to hamstring its logistics. Yeah you wont win a fair fight against that armored patrol with CAS, so you fight them when those aircraft are grounded or blow up their fuel trucks and pipelines.
You say you woulnt want to live in afghanistan for the last 20 years, I'd counter with the assertion that US military strategy in that region has been the height of arrogance. No sane commander would have chosen to wage that war, the threat of prolonged insurgency should have been enough to make us think twice; we certainly could have learned that from the soviet example. It is likely that the debt incurred from that war will bring the american empire to its knees. They gave us the poor man's version of mutually assured destruction and we blindly called their bet, because of this I'd call the last 20 years an anomaly. Against a normal adversary this threat should be enough to keep the peace, certainly more so than a locally fielded conventional force.
I didn’t say fight conventional with conventional.
> A town may not be able to afford a detachment of tanks or chalk of attack helicopters, but they may be able to afford the systems to detect and shoot down those vehicles in a cost effective manner.
The reality is it won’t always be possible to hamper the logistics of the enemy, such as the militias in the ME. Lot of other countries have aircraft carriers, even more have helicopter carriers. I’ve seen this assertion before, it’s not a guarantee.
You say it’s anomaly yet point to the Soviets as an example of it happening before. And that certainly wasn’t the first time guerrilla warfare has been used. Vietnam, both the US and Chinese afterwards. Somalia. Peninsula War against Napoleon. Why assume arrogance doesn’t exist within military structures when it obviously does? And even when the arrogant conventional force loses (which it doesn’t always, look at the Second Boer War) the militias homeland is ruined. Higher militia casualties are almost always a given. The larger conventional force doesn’t always have to worry about their domestic soil being turned to rubble, but that’s a given reality for the militia. I’d rather avoid that whenever possible.
> I didn’t say fight conventional with conventional.
Okay that's a good point. It would be advantageous to source these armaments first.
>You say it’s anomaly yet point to the Soviets as an example of it happening before. And that certainly wasn’t the first time guerrilla warfare has been used.
See this is largely a problem of data, we can see every example of the strategy not working but not every time it did work, because to do so would require being a fly on the wall for high level military strategy meetings. The fact of the matter is that when insurgencies have the support of the populace, they are highly effective against larger conventional forces. Even in all of the examples of failed insurgencies you mentioned, the insurgents are mostly victorious even if their victory is a pyrrhic one.
Not to mention the dichotomy is poorly framed if it exists as "insurgency = face 20 years of sustained occupation by a resourceful and technologically advanced force" and "nation-state army = win the war". Because this:
>The militias homeland is ruined. Higher militia casualties are almost always a given. The larger conventional force doesn’t always have to worry about their domestic soil being turned to rubble, but that’s a given reality for the militia.
is equally true for conventional forces when they are outnumbered, outgunned, or both. The only time when you're not facing the threat of domestic destruction is during a war of aggression. This is an assumption that westerners often make because of the presence of the American military(not saying this necessarily applies to you, but I've had this debate before and people usually assume their conventional force is going to be bigger than their enemy's), we are used to winning conventional wars to the point where we take it for granted.
Most libertarians are not extremists but moderates, it's a bell curve like all things.
Most of us are not against having a military. Without a standing, well trained, well equipped military, we would certainly be invaded.
Yeah, but the question obviously isn't aimed at you.
These are questions aimed at libertarianism as a whole by people who don't know much about it. It's important that people know that there is a large number of moderates amount us.
If the military is removed what are the problems you think you will face that you are asking for a replacement?
Invasion of other countries
Which countries are you afraid will invade you? How do you think these other countries would do it, if there is no government to topple?
Take China for instance. I bet they would overtake other countries, just like they are doing today.
I'm not a pro government person, just want to get that out of the way even if you didn't have that impression.
But even without a government to topple, China could conquer what is the US and take over that land and establish their government there as well. As well as control the people.
How would we counter that.
>I'm not a pro government person, just want to get that out of the way even if you didn't have that impression.
But how do the government of china control their people? How do you think the US government control its people?
I dont know if that's necessarily a counter to OP's argument, i think it's a valid concern.
I'd argue though that no conventional forces could occupy america because all of the key factors which enabled afghani irregulars to successfully resist the US are present here in even greater strength.
How? China doesent have the sea lift to invade Taiwan let alone bring the millions it would take to conquer the U.S.
Nuclear weapons would be an option I'd we didn't have any though.
Personally I think we need military capable of protecting us. Which is borders and coast and a nuclear deterrent.
Step one, curbstomp resistance
Step 2, make a government
For wealth and resources. Have you not read any history. Thinking the existence of government is the cause of human conflict is shallow thinking.
1. A national guard of volunteers. Cons include being more susceptibility to attack and a slow response rate to attack. Leadership would be hard to establish. Pros wars would only be fought with the support of the voluntary fighters.
2. Keep the leadership in place but eliminate the standing force and ask for volunteers or national guard when needed. Cons leadership is in place. Pros leadership is in place. National guard can provide decent training and the leadership structure can reasonably quickly assemble a competent defense force. Wars would only be fought with the support of the voluntary fighters
3. No army. Militias would be the only defense force. Cons. no leadership, no cost, no offensive capabilities, only small arms defense. Pros. No leadership.
I prefer 2 but I'm a minarchist not an ancap so I think a nation with no organization is highly susceptible to invasion. Leadership in place and a budget to build the weapons needed to mount a successful defense while minimizing casualties while blocking unpopular wars and almost every offensive war seems the best option but I'm sure others would disagree.
Roderick long is my favorite on this: http://www.freenation.org/a/f22l3.html
I gotta wonder who downvoted this
I'm not a Libertarian but I feel like this entirely depends on the country, sometimes a military is required to protect rights and freedoms and most people I've spoken to who identify as Libertarians would usually back some kind of a military force, just likely funded in a different way. The problem in the US is the sheer size of the military is insane and it is so deeply entrenched into the US economy and provides so many jobs cutting it overnight would bring the US economy to its knees so it's a tricky subject. The argument of redirecting the funds gradually into infrastructure projects is probably the best way to limit it, but that isn't a very Libertarian approach.
Here's the anarchist perspective:
A well armed and trained yeomanry. Enough private citizens who drill together that attempting to invade your territory will be logistically infeasible due to the threat of sustained unconventional warfare. No competent military leader will try without having a *very* good reason to do so(and as peaceful anarchists, you generally wouldn't give them one).
The military of another country of course...
Another countries military.
Each individual should protect their own property and other people's property that they have a vested interest in. As long as there is something valuable to defend, the free market will make defense happen.
Invading an anarchist society, in general, seems like it would be almost impossible. Invading a centralized society is easy because you only need to take a few key locations: capturing DC, Silicon Valley, and New York would probably be enough to conquer the entire United States, for example. By contrast, a decentralized society can reorganize itself away from everything you take control of. There would be no single location to capture that would give you control over every citizen, so you would have to take and hold every inch of land at the same time.
Good question. As an AnCap, I'll try my best to explain it in as much detail as I can. The mechanism of a central organized national military would almost certainly not exist in Anarcho-Capitalism. There are multiple other mechanisms to consider, however.
1) Armed citizenry: There would virtually no restrictions on weapon ownership. What is already widely acknowledged as a factor that makes America difficult to invade is ramped up to 11.
2) "Packaging": A form of privatization in which an ostensibly public good is provided as a natural extension of a private good. For example, despite their widely being regarded as a "public good" most lighthouses are private because they are better for dock profits. It's not difficult to imagine companies selling insurance against destruction would take action to defend their customers, as just one possible example.
3) Private police/security: It would be unlikely that those offering protection of property on the market wouldn't extend this service to the case of a military conflict. And due to market incentives, compared to police in a statist society it's likely they would make a more formidable fighting force.
4) Communal/non-profit efforts: Many services conventionally considered public goods have been handled this way, including police (neighborhood watch), roads, most fire departments, charity, etc.
I think it's not unreasonable to argue that these mechanisms combined would make for formidable military defense. However, in addition, there are also multiple natural advantages an anarchist region has defensively, most notably the lack of a center (a human is stronger than 5 mice, but you can't kill 5 mice with one bullet), but also differences in the incentive structure surrounding invasion. If you invade a statist society with the intent of conquest you will need to go to war (typically) against the military alone and consume an already existent government. If you invade an anarchist society you're essentially at war with everyone and you need to build from the ground up.
As a final point, I'll concede I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that a statist society has the ability to form a stronger military. But stronger doesn't mean better (it can be abused and used offensively). Even if you assume it will provide military defense *better*, I think I've demonstrated it's not enough to dismiss Anarcho-Capitalism. Simply a minor knock against it.
Doesn't require a gross, icky, no-good government
Will not be abused in unethical and expensive ways
Likely has a lower ceiling on how strong it can be in the absolute sense
I invented a replacement for not only militaries (all of them) and every government in 1995.
My essay, "Assassination Politics".