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.
