A Free People Cannot Be Conquered

Without the central machinery of government already in place, what exactly can an outside enemy conquer and control? While there is still the potential for plunder, in an anarchic set up of society, there would be no way for a gang to assert their authority over a free people.

This is a main criticism when people hear that you want no government: “but what if a cartel comes in and sets up a government?” So worst case scenario for eliminating government is that we end up with a government again? Interesting.

But while we would still need a market for repelling invasions of theoretical armies set on rape and looting, there would be no such risk of a central takeover. Because there would be no central thing to take over. Currently, couldn’t you imagine ISIS marching into Washington with some heads on stakes and telling the government they are in control now? Is your congressman going to tell him no? Nah, mine niether. Mine would probably beg to be the new head of the IRS (Islamic Revenue Service) for the USI (United States of Islam).

Then the attackers could just issue their orders, and the hierarchy we have created through the America government would creak back to life under new management. Except now cops would be telling you to praise allah instead of praise the state. But basically it would be the same thing. More beheadings, fewer shootings I would think.

So the scary possibility that our thieving murdering gang of masters would be replaced with a different murderous gang is in fact more likely now than it would be in a decentralized free land, where no one is forcibly beholden to another.

What would ISIS do without a government to take over? Walk into every single house, and say, we are in charge now? Because a third of those houses are going to shoot back. ISIS may be able to currently subject unarmed people used to being oppressed, but it would not go so well if the people were armed or free: if they were armed and free, forget about it. 100 million of those people that currently submit to the authority of the USA are armed, most with more than one gun. The only reason that is possible, observes Larken Rose, is:

Right now, millions of people are PROUD to be forcibly subjugated and robbed. They call it being a “law-abiding taxpayer.” That is the ONLY reason that a group of about 100,000 bureaucrats (the IRS), only about 2,000 of whom are even armed, can continually rob a couple HUNDRED MILLION Americans every year (tens of millions of THEM armed), to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars every year. Any gang which tried to pull that off with those resources, but WITHOUT their victims imagining them to be “authority,” would be fish food within the week.

Right now, ISIS has at most 50,000 fighters. That’s one ISIS fighter for every 2,000 armed men and women in the USA. Does ISIS have ironman suits? If not, how is one fighter going to keep 2,000 armed resisters in line after the “take over”? The only possible way for a foreign enemy of that size to threaten America is if we already have a centralized group of controllers in power who can simply hand off their reigns to the new oppressors.

The USA has the most powerful military, probably in history, yet they cannot even beat some militants in the mountains of Afghanistan. Russia has got over 3 million soldiers and a crap-load of rusty tanks. Still, they are outnumbered 1 to 10 by armed Americans. The militia style protection of one’s homeland is an effective structure of tyrannical resistance that requires no central organizing authority.

It is another market response. If Russia invaded the east coast, people from California might not come with their guns to fight, but people from Kentucky probably would. And if Russia reached Colorado, people from California would indeed see the writing on the wall, and wish to repel an invasion before it reached their territory. But no invading enemy would even get that far invading a free people. If they decided to go house to house and assert their power, there would be a handful of dead soldiers at every one of the homes. By the time they reached 1 million armed resisters, just 1% of the armed population of the USA, there would be millions of dead invaders and zero moral.

An outside power cannot sustain the personnel and equipment to subject 100,000,000 armed people to their rule, even when those resistors are spread across the vast acreage of the current United States. And even though there would still technically be the opportunity to plunder, a looting force would have to be much smaller than an invading force in order for the spoils to be worth it. This is because invading armies generally use more supplies than they conquer.

So essentially the same outcome would come from an attempted marauding of a coastal city. The first attack might be relatively successful before an entire city of armed free men and women ventilate the attackers. The next attackers will not choose that city, and the first attackers won’t be attacking anyone else.

In short, it would be easier for a foreign enemy to conquer the United States now, with all its central authority in place, than to conquer a free people living in the same geographical area of the current USA. And since the worst case scenario for having no government is that a government is set up in the vacuum (unlikely since they wouldn’t have time to condition us to accept their authority), it would seem there is not much to lose. The only thing that currently keeps us beholden to a small group of conquerers is our submission to our masters, based on their perceived “authority”.

20 thoughts on “A Free People Cannot Be Conquered

  1. Joe I think the biggest obstacle that we’re going to have to face, before really anything can be truly changed, is that the elites, and the powers that be are working very hard to dumb this country down, to the point to where people cannot critically think anymore.I walk down the street, and all I see are mindless brain dead zombies, staring at their phones, unaware of what’s going on around them.My question to you Joe is, how can we stem the tide of this learned helplessness, that is taking over society, at a rapid pace.A dumbed down society, is an easily enslaved society, if we can’t stop this dumbing down process, then I just can’t see how we will ever be able to achieve our freedom again.

    • Obviously you are correct, that is the hard part. There are a few promising signs. Things like youtube and netflix will help shift media to the internet, where there is more competition and less of a stranglehold on entertainment and news. Things like bitcoin for alternatives to the dollar, and hopefully someday viable options for alternative societies like seasteading. If the right things fall into place, we may not have to convince everyone, we might just be able to make the perfect society for ourselves and our loved ones. In that case, it would catch on once people saw the quality of life of those who have bucked the system. A number of things could also happen that makes being stupid… dangerous enough so that reproductive age is hard to reach.

      But for now I think just trying to tackle these issues from as many angles as possible is a good start. Like I was saying on the last post, not everyone is going to get the message through politics, some will get to that same independent place of self control however through other means, and they would be our allies, even if they “don’t know anything about politics”.

  2. “Right now, millions of people are PROUD to be forcibly subjugated and robbed. They call it being a “law-abiding taxpayer.” That is the ONLY reason that a group of about 100,000 bureaucrats (the IRS), only about 2,000 of whom are even armed, can continually rob a couple HUNDRED MILLION Americans every year (tens of millions of THEM armed), to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars every year. Any gang which tried to pull that off with those resources, but WITHOUT their victims imagining them to be “authority,” would be fish food within the week.” That may soon be changing. We are now approaching the threshold of what people will tolerate. The three percent movement may be at the forefront, but nationwide there is a groundswell of resistance to the police state that is growing daily. I believe that it all started here: http://eatgrueldog.wordpress.com/2014/04/13/a-witness-to-history-bunkerville-and-the-boston-tea-party/ I think that many people have underrated the importance of what happened there; not in my lifetime have Americans risen up before to take the field against the state. BTW I am not pimping a link so feel free to delete the comment without risk of offense.

    • I think you are right, lots of people are waking up to the police abuse and government corruption. I think that is a great sign how relatively few people essentially forced the feds into retreat, but I think we need a thousand more standoffs like that. Pretty much whenever the FDA or USDA is stealing milk and animals from farmers, or stealing their honey bees, or when the EPA claims the authority to fine people without due process, or when rights are ignored and the government aggresses on people. It is a great start and hopefully emboldened people to stand up for themselves and their neighbors.

      • I believe that a thousand more are on the way. There are threepers across the country who are committed to travel to Connecticut, New York, Colorado or anywhere else if the states start gun confiscation or swatting. Ct. has already backed down for the moment after making 100,000 of it’s citizens felons.

  3. Joe, I love your thoughts and I agree with a lot in this post, But where is Rule of Law in your scenario? It’s the best thing we have. It’s the glue. There’s even “rule of law” in a pick up game of basketball. There’s nothing wrong with expecting, and having an expectation of how everyone should basically act and if they don’t, knowing what a “normal” punishment is for it. The beauty of our system, it’s already there for the taking, if we don’t let it slip away. We don’t have to recreate the wheel. We have to fight to reign it in. We are “those guys in this place in history”. If the Pilgrims or the Founding Fathers had a voice now I’m guessing they’d say, don’t let it go off the tipping point. Preserve what we created. Continue the longest lasting experiment of freedom in modern human history.

    • I would argue the only reason we still have rule of law is that the market forces demanding it are strong enough even to overcome government opposition to rule of law. I think that since we insert rule of law in casual scenarios like basketball games, it shows it is valued by people in general who won’t cheat in basketball in order to make sure their opponent doesn’t cheat.

      And I agree. I think at the time the Founding Fathers put in motion the best system they could to protect from outside threats and maintain individual freedom. But I think we have moved beyond the point of needing force in order to have rule of law. I think the ideas in the Bill of Rights are important, but that they don’t need to be the basis for a government, since the defining feature of government is unjust: at some level there will be force used against someone who has victimized no one. If we eliminate that I think we will indeed preserve everything the founders set up, and not have to fight off a corrupt behemoth government every 200 years.

      At some point, the government would win. Not last time around, and maybe not this time around, but eventually governments will either destroy this world, or turn it into a dystopian nightmare like 1984 or Brave New World where it is too late to return to the rule of law. To prevent that, we must indeed learn from the founders, and adopt their thinking, while throwing out the unnecessary: any government at all. That way only voluntary agreements and mutual gain will run things.

      • Joe,wouldn’t you agree,that the rule of law is really Null and void anymore, since our government routinely violates the rule of law with impunity.When the people in power break the laws, with no consequences, then there really is no law, just a fight for survival for the rest of us.

      • You are right, because when the rule of law applies unevenly then it is not really the rule of law. But I think something that resembles the rule of law can happen when enough people demand it does. It was in that sense that I talk about the market sometimes injecting the rule of law in today’s society, but it is a gamble who will see it and who won’t. Without the government involved, I think there would be more of a “real” rule of law, applied evenly, because the government wouldn’t be there to shut down the market driven demand for it.

  4. Pingback: 15 Ways You Are Wrong About Anarchists | Vigilant Vote

  5. Pingback: What If Only Those Who Produced Wealth Could Use It? | Vigilant Vote

  6. Pingback: Setting the Example: Police Accountability Must be a Peaceful Movement | Vigilant Vote

  7. Pingback: Setting the Example: Police Accountability Must be a Peaceful Movement | Joe Jarvis

  8. Pingback: What If Only Those Who Produced Wealth Could Use It? | Joe Jarvis

  9. Pingback: 5 Reasons it Doesn’t Make Sense to say “We Owe Our Freedom to the Military” | Joe Jarvis

  10. Pingback: You Don’t Always Need to Know How It Works, to Know It Works | Joe Jarvis

  11. Pingback: 5 Reasons Why the Article “5 Reasons Why I’m Not An Anarchist” is Wrong | Joe Jarvis

  12. Pingback: The Future of Freedom | Joe Jarvis

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s