This is "Christian anarchism and common defense".
Probably the next frequent concern with anarchism
is “What about the national defense? How
would we protect ourselves from other countries
that might want to invade us?” This is certainly
a fair apprehension, and one which we as anarchists
must offer some practical solutions to. Believe
it or not, there are more possible solutions
to this problem than we can even explain fully
here, but that won’t stop us from trying.
The first point is that without a tax structure,
there would be a vastly lessened incentive
to invade our landmass, because there would
be no economic hierarchy or income to inherit.
The invading power would literally have to
go to every single door and hijack the person’s
money, and even without a national (military)
or local (police) defense, this would be very
impractical and inefficient, and just a huge
pain. We would also expect that in a free
society, the populace would be well-armed,
as many may opt not to subscribe to a police
service – so an aggressive force would not
know what to expect from each home.
Now, remember – morality first, then practicality.
Stealing $10,000 from someone might let me
buy a nice home security system with the money,
but that does not mean that we should steal.
People should be able to choose which services
they wish to subscribe to without the use
of force. For example, if you are reading
this, then clearly you would wish to continue
funding something like a ‘national defense’
(or ‘regional defense’, since technically
there would be no nation) – and surely there
are plenty of others in north America just
like you – so in short, that’s how it
would be funded.
So you’re saying that if I donate my part,
I should also expect that others will contribute
enough money to provide for the defense?
In a sense, yes. The key here, again, is the
non-aggression principle. So let’s say that
without the force of the state, you and only
10% of others would voluntarily fund national
defense. Your first reaction may be, that’s
not enough. Does that then give you (the minority)
the right to forcefully extort money from
the others who disagree with you, in order
to better procure a sense of your own security?
Well, of course not. Now let’s imagine that
51% or 90% would voluntarily fund it. Now
that you are the majority, does that still
give you the right to forcefully extort money
from the others who disagree with you? Of
course not! BUT – clearly if there are enough
others who agree with you on national defense,
then that’s how it would be funded.
Of course, we would all be free to start intentional
communities, perhaps similar to HOAs, that
could act as *voluntary* states. So let’s
imagine again that only 10% of us wanted to
voluntarily fund national defense. Well, we
could all get together and form a community
– let’s call it Texas – and we could
all agree that in order to live in our community,
you had to pay 10% of your income towards
defense. Anyone who doesn’t pay gets ejected
– they broke the contract!
Who would actually provide the defense services?
If the US government were to be abolished,
we would probably first see a progressive
cutback in the size of the military, and might
then see branches of the military sold to
different private companies such as Boeing,
Lockheed Martin, Northrop, etc. Boeing might
defend the western border, Lockheed the east,
and Northrop the south. It would be in the
best interests of the consumers and therefore
of the corporations for them to work together
tactically – in a way, to continue as branches
or divisions of the military.
As far as actual war-making decisions and
policy, this would be left up to the consumers
and companies. The consumers may want to have
majority votes on individual efforts – for
example, the company could provide an online
voting system – or they may choose to delegate
those decisions to the company – and we
would probably see an evolution of both systems.
Within each company, the military would probably
function much the same as it does now, hierarchically.
There would be almost no incentive for a branch
to “go rogue”. For one thing, their entire
consumer base would instantly defund them.
Then, as the other branches would be charged
with protecting the citizens that would be
affected, the rogue branch would come under
attack from multiple other parties. The cost-benefit
analysis is clearly on the side of peace in
the long-term. Additionally, consumers could
demand an open ledger of assets, or periodic
audits, or some other system to hold each
branch in check and maintain their own peace
of mind.
But some people might not pay for the defense,
and they would be afforded the same protections
as the rest of us. That’s not fair.
Well, do we consider it moral when the mafia
gives “protection” to a businessman by
extorting money from him, and if he opts out,
they use force against him? Of course not!
The mafia has the option NOT to provide (or
fund) the “protection”, and the fact that
they do it anyways does NOT imply that anyone
who receives a perceived benefit as a byproduct
of that should be morally liable to pay for
those benefits.
Why am I expected to pay for protections that
I didn’t ask for? Conservatives will recognize
that this is exactly what the US government
is trying to do in forcing everyone to purchase
healthcare. If enough people are concerned
that they will be nuked (and I suspect there
will be plenty), then they are all free to
contribute to such a fund of their own volition.
Again, in fact, those people could even move
to the same neighborhood or area (which might
function as a state, voluntarily/contractually),
and develop or fund whatever kind of defense
systems they wanted to. All we ask is for
the same right to freely and peacefully do
elsewise.
For Christians
Consider what the Bible has to say about war.
We know in the New Testament that Christ teaches
nonviolence through Love before all else.
Christ teaches that we are not to be militant,
but to be men of peace whenever possible.
For though we live in the world, we do not
wage war as the world does.
2 Corinthians 10:3
Even in the Old Testament (the Old Covenant),
where the Lord is described as “a man of
war” (Exodus 15:3), His instruction is to
first seek peace before war, and to spare
the lives of the innocent:
When you march up to attack a city, make its
people an offer of peace… As for the women,
the children, the livestock and everything
else in the city, you may take these as plunder
for yourselves. And you may use the plunder
the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.
Deuteronomy 20:10, 14
As Christians, let us remember that our greatest
value on earth is Love, and that we must strive
for peace in all things as a token of that
Love.
