Jump to content

Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board


Sign In 

Create Account
If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible troll and spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your information and the situation will be addresses ASAP.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

LISTEN TO A 24/7 STREAM ON THE NEW FREEDOMAIN RADIO iOS APP!


DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here
66 Philosopher King files - 73 Gold files - 47 Silver files - 51 Bronze files


One new Silver podcast has been added to the donator section: Is a lack of empathy immoral?.

If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information and it will be corrected as soon as possible.


Photo

How would DRO's have dealt with Hitler?


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1
alexlaird87

alexlaird87
  • 419 posts

 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?


  • 0

“That which has always been accepted by everyone,
everywhere, is almost certain to be false”
- Paul Valéry


 


"A great many people think
they are thinking when they
are merely rearranging their prejudices"
- William
James



#2
Jalla

Jalla
  • 21 posts

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.


  • 0

#3
alexlaird87

alexlaird87
  • 419 posts

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?


  • 0

“That which has always been accepted by everyone,
everywhere, is almost certain to be false”
- Paul Valéry


 


"A great many people think
they are thinking when they
are merely rearranging their prejudices"
- William
James



#4
Alan Chapman

Alan Chapman
  • 5063 posts

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?


  • 0

#5
alexlaird87

alexlaird87
  • 419 posts

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.


  • 0

“That which has always been accepted by everyone,
everywhere, is almost certain to be false”
- Paul Valéry


 


"A great many people think
they are thinking when they
are merely rearranging their prejudices"
- William
James



#6
Blank

Blank

  • 14136 posts

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.

 


  • 0

#7
alexlaird87

alexlaird87
  • 419 posts

 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...


  • 0

“That which has always been accepted by everyone,
everywhere, is almost certain to be false”
- Paul Valéry


 


"A great many people think
they are thinking when they
are merely rearranging their prejudices"
- William
James



#8
Blank

Blank

  • 14136 posts

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.


  • 0

#9
Eric Starnes

Eric Starnes
  • 442 posts

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.


  • 0

#10
Jax

Jax
  • 145 posts

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.
  • 0


#11
sirhotalot

sirhotalot
  • 4 posts

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.


  • 0

#12
Lowe D

Lowe D

    Lion King

  • 861 posts

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.


  • 0

If we have souls, they are made of the love we share. Undimmed by time, unbound by death.

Oblivion


#13
alexlaird87

alexlaird87
  • 419 posts

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


  • 0

“That which has always been accepted by everyone,
everywhere, is almost certain to be false”
- Paul Valéry


 


"A great many people think
they are thinking when they
are merely rearranging their prejudices"
- William
James



#14
Lowe D

Lowe D

    Lion King

  • 861 posts

Haha!  You're right.  My bad.


  • 0

If we have souls, they are made of the love we share. Undimmed by time, unbound by death.

Oblivion


#15
lucytunes

lucytunes
  • 171 posts

I think your scenario is far too chicken and egg. I can't imagine how any AnCap society could 'appear' in isolation like that. It is like imagining a ball of string and then imagining an section of that ball not having string. But a ball of string can only ever be unravelled as a ball...... or, if you took a knife to it and cut out a section (like an orange segment) the ball would mostly unravel all around the hole. This is what I think would happen if an AnCap society suddenly 'appeared' out of nowhere.

 

I think you are forgetting that AnCap is not just a system - it's a set of very powerful ideas and possibilities. If AnCap was known to be actually working in Britain then that would be proof to the German people that those ideas and possibilities worked and existed not far away. Wouldn't Germany's tyrannical hierarchy - born of fear mongering, racist, xenophobic propaganda - immediately start to crumble as its population (including soldiers and government employees) learned of Britain's AnCap society?

Even Göring admitted that: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship..../..... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

A functioning AnCap 'nation', and all that that implies, just across the channel is the very opposite of the kind of propaganda and oppression which kept millions of Germans following orders.

Statism might have to be imposed by force, but you seem to assume that AnCap (or more to the point: freedom) would also have to be imposed by force. But isn't it more accurate to say that people choose to 'buy into AnCap / freedom freely' whereas we have to be 'sold statism/ tyranny by force'. Perhaps a leaflet drop of postcards from Britain would be all that's required for enough German people to freely buy into the idea of AnCap (and freedom generally) and for Nazi Germany to crumble and the Holocaust be averted?

After all 99% of people are caught up in a war. Nazi Germany was no different. Offer them the possibility of a way out (a clear example of how peace and freedom can be enjoyed) and they will choose it.

 

 


  • 0

#16
repka

repka
  • 191 posts

Let's say I'm a nazi-supporter loving Hitlers plans, living in AnCapistan. Would you support the the use of force against me, if I wanted to send the nazis money to kill more people? Assuming they needed my money as the final step to build Auschwitz?


  • 0

#17
lucytunes

lucytunes
  • 171 posts

Let's say I'm a nazi-supporter loving Hitlers plans, living in AnCapistan. Would you support the the use of force against me, if I wanted to send the nazis money to kill more people? Assuming they needed my money as the final step to build Auschwitz?

How are you going to transfer your money to them?

What agency are you going to use and what might they think about your request?

And what might the consequences be for them if they were to comply?

ETA: It may be a long time coming but people like the Rockefellers and the Bush family (specifically Prescott Buch) are now experiencing a degree of 'backlash' for their part in funding/ profiting from the Nazi regime. The Rockefellers funded Ernst Rudin (The Nazi's 'race purity' expert) and there's a Guardian article about Bush's connection out there on the web if you're interested.

Assuming the web is here to stay, any such 'evil transactions' are going to have increasingly big consequences for all involved, and the consequences are going to become more and more 'real time' as information moves faster and faster. Sort of like the positive flip side of Big Brother, which you could define as 'the whole world is watching'.


  • 0

#18
Unordinary Joe

Unordinary Joe
  • 51 posts

I don't think an AnCap society would really have reason to do anything unless they were attacked. People could come together voluntarily and decide to preemptively act, but that would probably not involve DROs or Collective Defense Agencies unless a great majority of their customers paid a substantial amount to do so.

If someone within the AnCap society wanted to fund the Nazis they would probably need to deliver the money manually and then people would probably ostracize him.


  • 0

"In order to be irreplaceable one must be diffrent." (Coco Chanel)


#19
Yab yum

Yab yum
  • 40 posts

Something I often wonder about the AnCap approach - are its adherents saying that it will be a society that will necessarily have less laws? Or is it not possible that it will have the identical number of laws that exist in our current society - but just that these laws will be imposed through a mechanism of voluntarism?

If the latter is the case I see no reason why a response to a dictator would not be just as robust as ever.


  • 0

#20
JamesP

JamesP
  • 3903 posts

There are so many possibilities when it comes to the potential rise of a dangerous political leader (but then I repeat myself) if no single group has a monopoly on the initiation of violence.

It is important to understand that Hitler rose to power through popular vote.  Furthermore, the level of atrocity that occurred was greatly enabled by things like refusing asylum to would-be Jewish emigrants.  Finally, none of this was completely secret nor happened overnight.

In a voluntary society that existed amongst statist societies, there may be trade, though that itself is debatable.  But, assuming that there was trade, the voluntary society would be an economic powerhouse.  If people became aware of increasing instability in a statist society, there are any number of possible responses, all of which could occur in any degree relative to each other, and are not mutually exclusive:

  • Watchdog organizations would report on the increasing instability.
  • Trade with the unstable region would become more risky, shifting to other areas.
  • Humanitarian organizations would reach out to smuggle people out of the unstable region.
  • Educational & therapeutic treatment organizations would reach out to people in the unstable region to try to help them change their society.
  • Surely some form of treaty or trade agreement (let's just assume that is coherent) would involve some assurance of economic stability in the statist region.  Increasing instability would be considered a breach of that agreement and there may be suspension of economic ties until stability is restored.  This would hurt the statist economy far worse than it would hurt the voluntary economy.

Dictators today are past friends, present enemies.  There would no support for an element in a voluntary society for propping up a dictator in an unstable region as doing so is incredibly dangerous.  Because people in the voluntary society already recognize the danger of centralized power, they would work incredibly hard to avoid returning to such a state.

Finally, people in a voluntary society would recognize that a war or some other sort of aggressive political action would carry a HUGE risk of blowback.  Even if they were successful in toppling the statist regime, support of the centralized use of violence comes from the bottom up, not the top down.


  • 0

Connect with me: @jamesapyrich, Facebook, james-a-pyrich on Skype


Meetup with fellow local Freedomainers!

 

I accept BTC: 1DGcCf52Tnyc6pJbyQUwbiLj6Pkt6qHa3Y


#21
Avnatanyel

Avnatanyel
  • 7 posts

An underground railroad seems like the best option to me.  If he then attacks Ancapistan, that's when the DRO defenses kick in. 


  • 0