Freedomain Radio

 This is an conundrum that hasbeen sitting in my head for the last 12 hours and I have got an answer, so I thought i would open it up to the freemarket of ideas that is FDR to solve.

So, let us say that in 1943 England were replaced with AnCapistan and is not under attack from Germany. The Nazi's have rounded up the Jews and are starting their "final solution". 6 million people are about to be exterminated.

Should we do something? if so what and why?

if not, why not?

There is nothing we should do in anarchism.

It's very hard to imagine a Hitler coming to power without a democracy helping him to extract money from the people. The signs would be easy to detect if somebody get to power by some kind of mafia type organisation. It would be easy for the DROs to fight it before becoming a real problem.

Then your question has been shifted to how we get rid of democracy, Gov't and psychopaths who are willing to die for this evil crazyness. My answer is: VIOLENCE! There is no other way.

To look at the same issue in a more abstract framework; once some area of the world acheives freedom for itself, how will we then deal with injustices which we will witness occuring in the non-free "countries"?

If we accept the premise that we can preform 3rd party self-defence style battles with neighbouring states then how do we organise that?

Also, have we not just commited the same crime that we accuse statism of? Why is it ok for us to do it, when we would not accept the same justification if it were coming from a politician?

I don't think that DROs would deal with Hitler-types in the way that you're thinking.

In a free society, individuals would decide on their own whether or not to bear the costs.

Media pundits and man-on-the-street interviewers often ask what "we" should do, but what they really mean is this: Who should be compelled to bear the costs of righting wrongs in the world?

True.

Thinking outside the statist box can be difficult at times.

I guess any individuals which would choose to pool their resources to hire mercinaries (or a DRO or whatever) to fight to free the Jew's on their behalf.

If society were psychologically healthy enough to sustain a network of private organizations designed to facilitate win-win negotiations between peace loving individuals with mere preferential differences, there wouldn't BE a Hitler to deal with.

 

 So do you think that the global freedom "revolution" will be all at once? personally i think that will be unlikely. there will always be some cutting ahead and some trailing behind...

I don't. I think it will take at least a few dozen generations of the gradual expansion of empathy and self-protection, as more and more children are born to parents who actually give a s#!t about them.

If we're lucky and the human race makes it to the year 2250, and the practice of peaceful parenting becomes a common practice in the interim, it may just happen.

Well, my first answer is that they would not have imposed the the Treaty of Versailles on Germany in the first place. My second answer is that a free society coming into being in geographic proximity of a genocidal society is highly unlikely. My third answer is that if this did somehow happen that the vast majority of the people in a free society would want to stop a genocide and the entrepreneurs in that society would be far better then a statist bureaucracy in figuring out how to go about doing it.

Eric Starnes:

Well, my first answer is that they would not have imposed the the Treaty of Versailles on Germany in the first place.

This is a good place to start in almost every "what if?" discussion. Seeing how the State caused the problem helps with our cause. Also, many Jews were prevented from leaving Germany by Allied governments. Imagine the lucrative market that would exist to help people escape to a free society. Whole industries would have sprung up in moving people out of the occupied territory. Also, I do not think that there was ever a bounty on Hitler. A person or group of people who had a just complaint against Hitler (and there would be many such people) would be able to put a massive bounty on his head. Also, keep in mind that the hypothetical empire that he would have created would likely just crumble within a few years. And it's not as if the Nazi's were even close to the worst murderers. Remember, 262 million people were killed by the State in the 20th century. Hitler's government only got to 20 million, according to that same site. It's not as if an extra 10 years under Naziism would have been an order of magnitude worse or anything.

You guys are ignoring and misunderstand his original question. He's asking how an AnCap country would deal with Nazi Germany being their neighbor.

 

First it should be pointed out that the jews being rounded up and killed was a secret and wasn't found out til after the war. The only tip off that Germany had gone crazy was when they started mobilizing and invading Poland.

 

Pretending we did know about it, the answer is: Nothing. We have no authority in their country and they would see our freedom as a threat and wouldn't want to deal with us. The best we could do is secretly try to get as many people out as possible in an unofficial capacity.

alexlaird87:

This is an conundrum that hasbeen sitting in my head for the last 12 hours and I have got an answer, so I thought i would open it up to the freemarket of ideas that is FDR to solve.

I've got to guess this is about the Kony video.  If you don't mind me asking, does the idea of nobody stepping in to help those kids really bother you?  I would totally get that, if it did.

It does, but that isn't the reason for this thread. The OP was right around new years.