- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Anarcho-capitalist militias?

Posted by: Samuel Day Fassbinder ( Citizens for Mustard Greens, USA ) on June 04, 1999 at 10:26:17:

In Reply to: Splunge. posted by Red Deathy on June 03, 1999 at 16:38:06:

: : State socialists, right, left and centre, would naturally oppose the right of individuals to defend themselves, and specifically to own any means to do so, namely guns.

: Defend who from whom? Remember, the US constitution does not actually garauntee teh right to own weapons, it garauntees the right to join a local militia to protect the community from oppression. A thing some folks tend to forget, I'd go quote the *full* article, but can't be bothered...

SDF: Uh,


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The point of the 2nd amendment was that some assurance was needed in 1787 that "the people" would be able to defend themselves against the possible reimposition of British rule. Keep in mind that British troops briefly invaded Washington DC sometime later, in 1812 I think. And when the Framers used the word "State," they meant "State" as in New York State. Today, of course, states within the United States are merely administrative units under Federalism. And it is also to be considered most deeply that the renegade statist militias in the US (check out the links on this page for instance) are willing to believe in some form of collectivism. Consider firstly the discussion of the Confederacy (keeping always in mind the racist implications of such a concept) at the top of the above page -- what they claim they want to do with their militia movement is, to set up a government in competition with the United States of America. From the Michigan Militia's mission statement:
As it becomes increasingly obvious that the Constitution of the State of Michigan and the Constitution of the United States are being ignored, violated, and trampled on, we find it necessary to establish the Wayne County Militia.
Consider also the dire warning on this page:
The movement for freedom is rapidly approaching the point where, for many people, the option of belonging to a group will be non-existent. For others, group membership will be a viable option for only the immediate future. Eventually, and perhaps much sooner than most believe possible, the price paid for membership will exceed any perceived benefit. But for now, some of the groups that do exist often serve a useful purpose either for the newcomer who can be indoctrinated into the ideology of the struggle, or for generating positive propaganda to reach potential freedom fighters. It is sure that, for the most part, this struggle is rapidly becoming a matter of individual action, each of its participants making a private decision in the quietness of his heart to resist: to resist by any means necessary.
So one must consider the militia movement as motivated by something other than anarcho-capitalism.

: : Stateless Socialists, if I understand what is being said, must therefore support the right to self defence. If this right is to mean anything, an individual must also have the right to own and use the means to self defence, namely a gun.

: Some Socialists have a long history of wanting to Arm the working class, but thats usually only a stop gap measure for recolution. Personally, I think its pointless.

SDF: In this era, it is. Gee is quite under-technologized if he thinks "a gun" is going to defend one from attackers with the sort of arsenal that exists today. If we REALLY wanted to be safe, shouldn't we all own guns that fire armor-piercing bullets? Won't we need anti-tank weaponry? How about surface to air missiles? Might we find it expedient merely to purchase nuclear weapons? Or wouldn't owning those things invite the same sort of mass social paranoia that created the (statist) nuclear arms race in the first place? There is no way the militias are going to effectively compete with the US government, the world's biggest weapons dealer, nuclear weapons owner, weapons taxer, and weapons spender, spending more than four times as much as the nearest competitor, Russia.

The point is that peace and love are really the best defenses. Oh, yeah, and what is to distinguish a bunch of individuals with guns from this "the state" that libertarians so despise, even granted the possibility of an anarcho-capitalist militia?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup