Quote from: Solar on August 02, 2014, 01:15:59 PM
In this passive anarchist world you envision, one where we turn the other cheek unless physically attacked, whether personally as an individual, or a nation.
What happens when an aggressor on the National stage refuses to grant you access to to your interests, as say, a blockade.
They never fired a shot,  they refuse you passage, and you have no other options, diplomacy is fruitless. Do you fire the first shot?

What are "our interests"?  You mean internationally right?  In an anarchist society, all property is privately owned.  People are free to exchange with others for mutual benefit.  But no one has a right to another persons property.  If someone refuses to sell you their product, or refuses to allow you access to their property, then no you have absolutely no right to commit aggression against them.  You go about your business and find someone else who is willing to voluntarily trade with you.

Free trade is mutually beneficial to all parties so it is highly unlikely that many businesses or property owners would refuse to trade with others for no good reason.

If Saudi Arabia refused to sell us oil, then we wouldn't buy oil from them.  Simple as that.  We don't own their oil.  They may "block" us from accessing it as an antagonistic move, but we have no right to commit aggression against them for choosing what to do with their own resource.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 01:38:01 PM
What are "our interests"?  You mean internationally right?  In an anarchist society, all property is privately owned.  People are free to exchange with others for mutual benefit.  But no one has a right to another persons property.  If someone refuses to sell you their product, or refuses to allow you access to their property, then no you have absolutely no right to commit aggression against them.  You go about your business and find someone else who is willing to voluntarily trade with you.

Free trade is mutually beneficial to all parties so it is highly unlikely that many businesses or property owners would refuse to trade with others for no good reason.

If Saudi Arabia refused to sell us oil, then we wouldn't buy oil from them.  Simple as that.  We don't own their oil.  They may "block" us from accessing it as an antagonistic move, but we have no right to commit aggression against them for choosing what to do with their own resource.

You completely failed to answer the question. In the case of a blockade, an external force (a foreign nation) prevents us from accessing goods offered willingly on open markets. What then?

Quote from: TboneAgain on August 02, 2014, 02:41:00 PM
You completely failed to answer the question. In the case of a blockade, an external force (a foreign nation) prevents us from accessing goods offered willingly on open markets. What then?

Could you offer a concrete example of what that would look like?  I can imagine a scenario where we want to trade with a middle east nation but another neighboring nation blocks us from doing so.  Or we want to trade with a Chinese company but there government won't permit it through their own protectionist and anti free trade policies.  And other similar examples.

If our country embraces anarchy but the rest of the world is still comprised of nation states, we have to recognize that we cannot hope to remake the world through force.  That is what central planners and tyrants do. 

It would be unfortunate if another nation state blocks our ability to freely trade with other nations, but would you risk war over it?  The ideal of free trade is certainly a noble one but even now geopolitical instability in certain parts of the world make the prospect of free exchange of goods and services with certain populations very difficult.  I would suggest we provide an example for others to emulate.  We can and should use diplomacy to encourage open trade and international markets.  We should spread the ideas of liberty through concerted, voluntary propaganda campaigns and through encouraging grassroots movements based on these ideas in other parts of the world.

I find it hard to believe that another nation would spend the money and resources to prevent free exchange of goods and services merely to spite us.  What would any nation stand to gain from preventing free trade between two nations that have nothing to do with them?  I would imagine that in any scenario where some nation is blockading the free trade into or out of a nation state, there is another ulterior motive behind the action.  There will no doubt be instability and strife in different parts of the world.

But let's say we wanted to trade with Iran, but Iraq and Afghanistan are making that very difficult through a blockade of some sort.  Do you propose we start dropping bombs on those two countries?  Military aggression is fraught with the potential for blowback and unintended consequences.

In an anarchist society, there would be no socialized military where the "leaders" can dump the costs of their military conquests and intervention on the taxpayers.  A private defense agency would have to evaluate whether the cost and the risk of attacking a blockading nation is worth it from a financial standpoint.  I very much doubt that any private defense agency would be willing to bear to cost and the considerable risk that comes from an open attack on another nation state, simply because they make it more difficult to freely trade with one nation out of more then one hundred.

Yes, technically speaking, the act of preventing consenting parties from engaging in voluntary economic transactions is an act of aggression.  But so would any number of atrocities that other nation states commit against their own people.  That doesn't mean that we have an obligation to openly attack every nation that commits aggression.

So my answer would be that, provided a private defense agency and insurance company believes that the cost and risk of using force to permit the free trade of goods and services on the open market is worth it, then they could use force only proportional to get around the blockade.  Any more and it would be an act of unjustified aggression.

But like I said, it is unlikely that any insurance agency and private defense provider would consider the risk and cost worth it.

Maybe TowardLiberty would like to add his two cents?

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 01:30:36 PM
Okay, I'll list some of my intellectual influences.  Not all of these people are equal in their influence of course but all played their part:

Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Henry Hazlitt, Stephen Kinsella, Ron Paul, Stefan Molyneux, Lysander Spooner, Frederic Bastiat, Walter Block, Scott Horton, Tom Woods, Benjamin Tucker

There are plenty of others but that is a good sampling.

Indeed, there are a number of prominent and worthy names on your list.
The purpose of my question was to highlight a contrast. Now Libertarianism
and Anarchism are relatively modern, the former, a product of the French
Enlightenment, which coined the term in 1789, and the latter, evolving
some three generations later. But pause and reflect a moment.
Classical Greece created Philosophy and the Laws of Reason(Logic),
Geometry, w/o which structure could not be built, Representative Democracy,
History, the chronicle of time, Literature, including Comedy and Tragedy, and more.
Imperial Rome followed, creating infrastructure that allowed the development of
the city, state and nation. The Medieval Era created the great monasteries
and universities which produced original minds such as Aquinas, Duns Scotus,
Occam etc. as well as the priests who were our first scientists. In the 13th cent.
Bernard of Chartres said his peers were but dwarves standing on the shoulders
of the Giants of Antiquity! Principled Conservatism, recognizing and respecting this,
it is anchored by the ageless wisdom of the past. My question is simple.
As the French Enlightenment was a revolutionary break w/the past, how do
modern isms such as Libertarianism and Anarchism reconnect w/the wisdom of the
past, for their strength and support???

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 03:27:57 PM
Could you offer a concrete example of what that would look like?  I can imagine a scenario where we want to trade with a middle east nation but another neighboring nation blocks us from doing so.  Or we want to trade with a Chinese company but there government won't permit it through their own protectionist and anti free trade policies.  And other similar examples.

If our country embraces anarchy but the rest of the world is still comprised of nation states, we have to recognize that we cannot hope to remake the world through force.  That is what central planners and tyrants do. 

It would be unfortunate if another nation state blocks our ability to freely trade with other nations, but would you risk war over it?  The ideal of free trade is certainly a noble one but even now geopolitical instability in certain parts of the world make the prospect of free exchange of goods and services with certain populations very difficult.  I would suggest we provide an example for others to emulate.  We can and should use diplomacy to encourage open trade and international markets.  We should spread the ideas of liberty through concerted, voluntary propaganda campaigns and through encouraging grassroots movements based on these ideas in other parts of the world.

I find it hard to believe that another nation would spend the money and resources to prevent free exchange of goods and services merely to spite us.  What would any nation stand to gain from preventing free trade between two nations that have nothing to do with them?  I would imagine that in any scenario where some nation is blockading the free trade into or out of a nation state, there is another ulterior motive behind the action.  There will no doubt be instability and strife in different parts of the world.

But let's say we wanted to trade with Iran, but Iraq and Afghanistan are making that very difficult through a blockade of some sort.  Do you propose we start dropping bombs on those two countries?  Military aggression is fraught with the potential for blowback and unintended consequences.

In an anarchist society, there would be no socialized military where the "leaders" can dump the costs of their military conquests and intervention on the taxpayers.  A private defense agency would have to evaluate whether the cost and the risk of attacking a blockading nation is worth it from a financial standpoint.  I very much doubt that any private defense agency would be willing to bear to cost and the considerable risk that comes from an open attack on another nation state, simply because they make it more difficult to freely trade with one nation out of more then one hundred.

Yes, technically speaking, the act of preventing consenting parties from engaging in voluntary economic transactions is an act of aggression.  But so would any number of atrocities that other nation states commit against their own people.  That doesn't mean that we have an obligation to openly attack every nation that commits aggression.

So my answer would be that, provided a private defense agency and insurance company believes that the cost and risk of using force to permit the free trade of goods and services on the open market is worth it, then they could use force only proportional to get around the blockade.  Any more and it would be an act of unjustified aggression.

But like I said, it is unlikely that any insurance agency and private defense provider would consider the risk and cost worth it.

Maybe TowardLiberty would like to add his two cents?

You can wander around in this forest of your own creation as long as you care to... though I think you'll find yourself doing it somewhere besides here before long. Are you capable of making an unqualified, straightforward statement of principle? Are you honestly willing to place the integrity and security of a sovereign nation in the hands of a "private defense provider" and an insurance company?

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 03:27:57 PM
Could you offer a concrete example of what that would look like?  I can imagine a scenario where we want to trade with a middle east nation but another neighboring nation blocks us from doing so.  Or we want to trade with a Chinese company but there government won't permit it through their own protectionist and anti free trade policies.  And other similar examples.

If our country embraces anarchy but the rest of the world is still comprised of nation states, we have to recognize that we cannot hope to remake the world through force.  That is what central planners and tyrants do. 

It would be unfortunate if another nation state blocks our ability to freely trade with other nations, but would you risk war over it?  The ideal of free trade is certainly a noble one but even now geopolitical instability in certain parts of the world make the prospect of free exchange of goods and services with certain populations very difficult.  I would suggest we provide an example for others to emulate.  We can and should use diplomacy to encourage open trade and international markets.  We should spread the ideas of liberty through concerted, voluntary propaganda campaigns and through encouraging grassroots movements based on these ideas in other parts of the world.

I find it hard to believe that another nation would spend the money and resources to prevent free exchange of goods and services merely to spite us.  What would any nation stand to gain from preventing free trade between two nations that have nothing to do with them?  I would imagine that in any scenario where some nation is blockading the free trade into or out of a nation state, there is another ulterior motive behind the action.  There will no doubt be instability and strife in different parts of the world.

But let's say we wanted to trade with Iran, but Iraq and Afghanistan are making that very difficult through a blockade of some sort.  Do you propose we start dropping bombs on those two countries?  Military aggression is fraught with the potential for blowback and unintended consequences.

In an anarchist society, there would be no socialized military where the "leaders" can dump the costs of their military conquests and intervention on the taxpayers.  A private defense agency would have to evaluate whether the cost and the risk of attacking a blockading nation is worth it from a financial standpoint.  I very much doubt that any private defense agency would be willing to bear to cost and the considerable risk that comes from an open attack on another nation state, simply because they make it more difficult to freely trade with one nation out of more then one hundred.

Yes, technically speaking, the act of preventing consenting parties from engaging in voluntary economic transactions is an act of aggression.  But so would any number of atrocities that other nation states commit against their own people.  That doesn't mean that we have an obligation to openly attack every nation that commits aggression.

So my answer would be that, provided a private defense agency and insurance company believes that the cost and risk of using force to permit the free trade of goods and services on the open market is worth it, then they could use force only proportional to get around the blockade.  Any more and it would be an act of unjustified aggression.

But like I said, it is unlikely that any insurance agency and private defense provider would consider the risk and cost worth it.

Maybe TowardLiberty would like to add his two cents?

That was a waste of time, where a simple answer of "I don't know" would have sufficed.
It's obvious you haven't thought your Utopian ideals through, studied history, or grasp human nature, so I'd suggest some light reading by Sun Tzu, a man whom had a firm grasp of human nature.

Fact is, if you are being blockaded, and you capitulate, your enemy will sense weakness of resolve, other nation states will see this as well, possibly allying with your enemies and entering into siege on your Utopian state.
Unfortunately by this time, it's too late and your demise is imminent, all because you cowered in the face of adversity.

You see, the world is full of people that have no issue in taking what you have, eg. Muscum would happily conquer you and sell your people into slavery.
That's right, it's part of their so called religion/political system.


Am I getting through here, do you understand the fact that there are nations that would love nothing more than to take everything you hold dear, including your freedom?

Quit reading shit that affirms your beliefs, that is the path of a fool in need of yes men, instead, start reading articles that are in direct conflict with your ideals, as you stated in the OP, "value in dialog with those of differing political persuasions", or were you simply pandering, in hopes of using the forum as your own personal soap box?

Quote from: TboneAgain on August 02, 2014, 03:50:21 PM
You can wander around in this forest of your own creation as long as you care to... though I think you'll find yourself doing it somewhere besides here before long. Are you capable of making an unqualified, straightforward statement of principle? Are you honestly willing to place the integrity and security of a sovereign nation in the hands of a "private defense provider" and an insurance company?

Your a conservative right?  I thought that conservatives were supposed to believe in free markets and competition.  Yet here you are defending a State monopoly on the provision of one of the most important services imaginable, security and defense.  Look at the monstrosity that the military industrial complex has grown into following the second World War.  We haven't even won a single war since WW2, but our military budget now stands at nearly one trillion dollars a year and our national debt has exploded in large part due to a never ending string of military interventions.

Is this a record you want to defend?  If every individual, every community could pay for precisely the amount of security they desired, then the market system of profit and loss would lead to economizing of resources, and a far better product at a lower cost. 

Why not argue for a monopoly on cell phone service?  Who in their right mind would advocate that, say, Verizon be granted a total monopoly on providing wireless service to the entire country?  Naturally this would lead to much higher costs and a worse product.  But somehow we are supposed to believe that these economic laws don't apply to government monopoly on national defense?

No I don't believe that we would be more at risk of invasion or attack if we had competing defense agencies that were financed by freely paying consumers.  We would be much safer and we wouldn't be instigating conflict throughout the world and running a military empire.  Militarism is extremely expensive.  That is why the State needs a central bank to expand credit at will.  Nations that are on a gold standard cannot wage endless war and finance a military empire.

On the market, providers will be trying to maximize the amount of security offered to their customers at the lowest price.  They wouldn't be building fighter jets that they have no use for!  They wouldn't be maintaining a nuclear arsenal of more than four thousand warheads! 

Perhaps you could elaborate on why a supposed conservative is advocating for socialism?  Defense socialism, a State monopoly on the provision of national defense.

Quote from: Solar on August 02, 2014, 04:50:32 PM
That was a waste of time, where a simple answer of "I don't know" would have sufficed.
It's obvious you haven't thought your Utopian ideals through, studied history, or grasp human nature, so I'd suggest some light reading by Sun Tzu, a man whom had a firm grasp of human nature.

Fact is, if you are being blockaded, and you capitulate, your enemy will sense weakness of resolve, other nation states will see this as well, possibly allying with your enemies and entering into siege on your Utopian state.
Unfortunately by this time, it's too late and your demise is imminent, all because you cowered in the face of adversity.

You see, the world is full of people that have no issue in taking what you have, eg. Muscum would happily conquer you and sell your people into slavery.
That's right, it's part of their so called religion/political system.


Am I getting through here, do you understand the fact that there are nations that would love nothing more than to take everything you hold dear, including your freedom?

Quit reading shit that affirms your beliefs, that is the path of a fool in need of yes men, instead, start reading articles that are in direct conflict with your ideals, as you stated in the OP, "value in dialog with those of differing political persuasions", or were you simply pandering, in hopes of using the forum as your own personal soap box?

Believe me, I don't just read things that affirm my beliefs.  So far in this debate I've suggested that you read two scholarly, well researched books by experts in their fields and yet I've only heard rehashed Neocon warmongering talking points from you.

This conservative "macho" tough guy stuff gets old real fast.  If you don't want your "enemy" to sense "weakness of resolve" then you ought to go do something about it.  You ought to spend your own money to push back against whatever non aggressive, perceived "encroachment" you sense from a foreign nation state.  What you shouldn't have the right to do though, is to steal my money or anyone else's money and send any young people off to be killed because you want to feel like a tough guy and show "strength" to the rest of the world.

You accuse me of not thinking through my principles but the example of a "blockade" is not specific enough to give any definitive answer.  Yes, if people are literally antagonizing you and are a genuine threat to launch an attack, you would be justified in doing something about it.  It's like if you saw the warships on the horizon, would you have to wait for them to land before attacking first?  Of course not.  But a "blockade" could be many different things, and not all of them are worth risking war over.

Furthermore, I don't think you understand the anarchist position.  There is no singular "nation".  There is a collection of sovereign communities comprised of sovereign people.  Each community and each person is permitted to spend his or her money on whatever security services they deem necessary.  Just because I cannot tell you what other people ought to do with their money in a free society is not a failing on my part to articulate any principles.  Rather it is precisely the point of opposing central planning and authority.

If an anarchist society is prosperous, as it surely would be, and the defense agencies hold an arsenal of weapons that are sufficient to repel any potential threat, then what would we have to worry about?  Who is going to attack a nation with nuclear weapons as a deterrent? 

This conservative fantasy about how we need to "project strength" and go around antagonizing people, propping up dictators and interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations in order to be safe from invasion cannot be refuted enough.

There is a big difference between legitimate defense and warmongering.  And you come down on the warmongering side far too frequently. 

But if you have any books you recommend I read on this subject, then let me know. 

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:18:55 PM
That is a funny but mean prank to pull.  But what does that have to do with the validity of Bitcoin as a currency? 

I don't want to divert this thread into a Bitcoin thread since I haven't personally used it and I don't claim to be any sort of expert.  All I said is that I want the market to choose the best currency.  That means I want a Stateless currency that people voluntarily choose to transact with.

why does it have to be a 'Stateless' currency?

If so would not incremental ounce gold and silver preferable 90 or better 925 sterling for the silver

jrodefeld, I'm still waiting for a response to reply #23.

Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 03:29:43 PM
Correct.
Let's say the attackers don't care what state you have.  They just want your land.
How are you protecting against tanks and bombs?  To ask another way, how are you defending against a bigger and more powerful army?  They will level your area before even setting foot on your ground.  How do you compete with that?
I'm asking about a scenario where a more powerful attacker wants your land, just because.  Their motive may or may not be to integrate an existing tax base (with whatever currency).
How do you bring the resources and technology together?
How are you going to build and engineer this nuclear weapon?  Where would you test it? 
I'm familiar with Rothbard.

If another State wants to invade and conquer your territory and they have a more powerful army as you stipulated, whether you are a State or a Stateless society, you are at a disadvantage.  If an invading army is much larger and more powerful, you are likely to lose regardless.  I maintain that the incentive for a nation state to invade will still be less in a Stateless society than one with an existing tax base and population that is acclimated to being ruled, but why would you assume that a Stateless society would have inferior resources and strength to defend itself?

This seems like a faulty assumption to me.  Each individual defense agency will have calculated the risk of invasion and will have made precautions in order to effectively repel such an attack.  It is highly likely that that various competing defense agencies will have formed agreements with each other in order to defend their clientele in a coordinated fashion if a very powerful army invades the territory.  Of course, if an invading army takes over a nearby community, your community and property are also at risk so you have every incentive to pay for the collective defense in such a situation. 

Furthermore, citizen militias and voluntary armies can play an important role.  Following the Swiss model, fighting age males can be encouraged to be armed and trained in the event of an invasion.  In fact, defense agencies and insurance companies will offer a discounted rate to customers who can display proficiency in self defense and who own a gun or several. 

As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, it needn't be said that the use of such weapons would ALWAYS be immoral from a libertarian standpoint.  And the goal should be to reduce them and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons altogether.  But as long as they exist and other nation states have them, it would be irresponsible to unilaterally disarm.  We would have to keep some of them for the purpose of deterring attacks from other nation states. 

The only weapons that can be legitimately used according to libertarian theory are those that can specifically target only the bad guys.  If you have a weapon that must by necessity injure and harm innocent people through its use, then it cannot ever be justified.  Nuclear weapons fall into this category.  So do biological weapons. 

Did you see a recent segment on John Oliver's show about the state of our nuclear weapons as maintained by the US government? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g

It is very funny but also very telling.  I believe that a couple dozen nuclear warheads could suffice just fine as a deterrent rather than more than four thousand.  And I have no doubt that a private company on the market could responsibly look after such weapons far better than any State.  Of course the insurance premiums for any such company would be through the roof given the inherent danger of such weaponry. 

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 07:28:07 PM
If another State wants to invade and conquer your territory and they have a more powerful army as you stipulated, whether you are a State or a Stateless society, you are at a disadvantage.  If an invading army is much larger and more powerful, you are likely to lose regardless.  I maintain that the incentive for a nation state to invade will still be less in a Stateless society than one with an existing tax base and population that is acclimated to being ruled, but why would you assume that a Stateless society would have inferior resources and strength to defend itself?

It is very funny but also very telling.  I believe that a couple dozen nuclear warheads could suffice just fine as a deterrent rather than more than four thousand.  And I have no doubt that a private company on the market could responsibly look after such weapons far better than any State.  Of course the insurance premiums for any such company would be through the roof given the inherent danger of such weaponry.

Russia has 8500

China has roughly 300-400

Still think a couple dozen nuclear warheads would suffice?

I don't  think you're stupid, just terribly, terribly naive and unrealistic.

-Darth

Quote from: Darth Fife on August 02, 2014, 07:51:40 PM
Russia has 8500

China has roughly 300-400

Still think a couple dozen nuclear warheads would suffice?

I don't  think you're stupid, just terribly, terribly naive and unrealistic.

-Darth

And how many of these have to be used to create a nuclear winter that will change life on earth as we know it?  New research suggests that even a small scale nuclear exchange could trigger a 10 year nuclear winter.  It is not for me to say how many nuclear weapons are needed as a deterrent but this constant build up is not necessary.

How many would you have?  10,000?  20,000?  If we drop even one nuclear warhead on another nation and they retaliate with one of their own, it could change life as we know it. 

I don't know if 40-50 nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles are enough.  I think we ought to be reducing nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.  But surely you recognize at some point that more nuclear warheads really don't serve any additional purpose as a deterrent?  Yes, 8000 is a larger number than 4000.  But does that really give Russia any additional leverage over other nuclear powers?  If you can wipe your enemy off the face of the map literally, then being able to do it two or three times over really provides no additional leverage.

And why would you trust this awesome destructive power to politicians?  Or do you take the position that the only rational course for humanity is to continue to endlessly build up our arsenals of nuclear weapons and defense budgets?  Where does it end?

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 08:12:17 PM
And how many of these have to be used to create a nuclear winter that will change life on earth as we know it?  New research suggests that even a small scale nuclear exchange could trigger a 10 year nuclear winter.  It is not for me to say how many nuclear weapons are needed as a deterrent but this constant build up is not necessary.

How many would you have?  10,000?  20,000?  If we drop even one nuclear warhead on another nation and they retaliate with one of their own, it could change life as we know it.

You really need to do some research, you ignorance on this topic is glaringly apparent.

Since the first tests prior to the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagaski, there have been a total of 2119 nuclear detonations!

And no "nuclear winter".

I suggest you stop reading DNC Talking points and start reading some history.

-Darth

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 05:25:54 PM
Believe me, I don't just read things that affirm my beliefs.  So far in this debate I've suggested that you read two scholarly, well researched books by experts in their fields and yet I've only heard rehashed Neocon warmongering talking points from you.

This conservative "macho" tough guy stuff gets old real fast.  If you don't want your "enemy" to sense "weakness of resolve" then you ought to go do something about it.  You ought to spend your own money to push back against whatever non aggressive, perceived "encroachment" you sense from a foreign nation state.  What you shouldn't have the right to do though, is to steal my money or anyone else's money and send any young people off to be killed because you want to feel like a tough guy and show "strength" to the rest of the world.

Macho? I'm flattered, because being a man is what it's all about. Never backing down from a fight, you know, like our Founders?

You can't answer my question, so you create your own and answer it? That is not what is referred to as debate, that is obfuscation.
I specifically described a blockade event, one where you are not being allowed to enter your allies waters, one in which you are being provoked, one that will expose your weakness, in turn showing cowardliness to your enemy, an enemy looking for weakness in resolve.
And you just gave it to them.

QuoteYou accuse me of not thinking through my principles but the example of a "blockade" is not specific enough to give any definitive answer.  Yes, if people are literally antagonizing you and are a genuine threat to launch an attack, you would be justified in doing something about it.  It's like if you saw the warships on the horizon, would you have to wait for them to land before attacking first?  Of course not.  But a "blockade" could be many different things, and not all of them are worth risking war over.

They've made their intentions clear, cross their line, and be destroyed, yet you think you can bargain, or turn and run, regardless of obligation to your ally?

QuoteFurthermore, I don't think you understand the anarchist position.  There is no singular "nation".  There is a collection of sovereign communities comprised of sovereign people.  Each community and each person is permitted to spend his or her money on whatever security services they deem necessary.  Just because I cannot tell you what other people ought to do with their money in a free society is not a failing on my part to articulate any principles.  Rather it is precisely the point of opposing central planning and authority.

Oh I understand it quite clearly, you're a syndicalist, one that believes in no govt, a dreamer, a denier of human nature.
You mentioned macho, what you fail to understand, is I would happily kick your ass, take your women, steal your country, all because I hate effeminate men.
Granted, you aren't a leader, and I don't see a country that runs on your fanciful principles, so I won't be invading today.

Point is, that mentality exists in the M/E, and to deny it is a fools prize.

QuoteIf an anarchist society is prosperous, as it surely would be, and the defense agencies hold an arsenal of weapons that are sufficient to repel any potential threat, then what would we have to worry about?  Who is going to attack a nation with nuclear weapons as a deterrent?

If Al quiada attacks, what nation are you going to nuke?

QuoteThis conservative fantasy about how we need to "project strength" and go around antagonizing people, propping up dictators and interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations in order to be safe from invasion cannot be refuted enough.

Welcome to the real world.

QuoteThere is a big difference between legitimate defense and warmongering.  And you come down on the warmongering side far too frequently. 

Peace through strength. The man with the most guns wins, that's the law of nature.

QuoteBut if you have any books you recommend I read on this subject, then let me know.

I gave you one, look it up online, it has no copyright, considering it's roughly as old as the bible.
That single book will give you an inside look at the soul of man, and his need to dominate, and it's still referenced by armies around the globe to this day.

Because in a thousand years, man has not changed one iota, only cultures, and some evolve into conquerors, and unfortunately, it will always be that way, because the world breeds bullies everyday, while it also breeds men of strength and resolve to take them on, which inevitably leads to war.
And that my friend, is human nature.