Thursday, December 27, 2012

Anarchy cannot last

Anarchy cannot last. Eventually some people decide they want other people's stuff. So a bunch of them band together to rape, pillage, and plunder. Then some people in the community offer their services as protectors in exchange for some food or coin to make up for their lack of time to produce their own food. Then the protectors decide that since they protect the community they should rule it. Then the people rebel and the protectors turn their blades on them. Then they decide they'd like tribute from the neighboring community as well... Don't think so? What happened to all the communes that emerged in Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire? In Italy the lucky ones became republican city-states, like Machiavelli's home of Florence. In Germany some of them lasted long enough to be incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire as Free Cities subject directly to the Empire rather than some territorial lord. The others were conquered with the exception of some of the Church's abbeys. Look at Somalia. A polluted war zone fought over by religious fanatics and tribal clans. Is that what you want?


Foxie said...

The way to avoid that is to make every individual responsible for the defence of their community. You're right in that, when you have a standing army of any kind, things degenerate quickly. However, if the people defending the community can not be absolved from being part of the community--if they still help grow the food, clean the streets etc--then they will not seek to dominate that community. A well-regulated militia, rather than a professional standing army, is the way to go.

Anonymous said...

I absolutely love your blog and find nearly all of your post's to be just what I'm looking for.
Would you offer guest writers to write content available for you?
I wouldn't mind composing a post or elaborating on most of the subjects you write with regards to here. Again, awesome website!

My page - satellite cardsharing kings