posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 03:44 PM
reply to post by RavagedSky
How, exactly, would this company -- which is only sustained by the profits it makes from voluntary consumers -- then successfully turn into a
Fascistic/monopoly/private army and then successfully brutalize the customers that supply its income?
If the owner(s) want it and the available wealth coporation can invest into military is higher than what the victims can, what exactly will stop
Would that make any sense at all? Would anyone still support this company in any conceivable way?
For the same reason ordinary people support local warlords in Somalia, Taliban in Afghanistan or dictators. From fear. And if the corporation has a
local monopoly on important supplies (forced or not), they have no choice.
You don't just raise a fleet of black helicopters and hundreds of thousands of highly-trained soldiers overnight.
Why not, if you have enough money, anything is possible. And why exactly would you need to do it overnight?
There's no Treasury to take over -- so they can't take over the money supply because there is no central money supply. There's no central
government. There is nothing for them to seize. Where will they go? What possible profit is there to be made?
They can take over peoples gold and property and use them for work, in exchange for basic supplies and "protection". There are many ways how to
exploit people if you have them under occupation and dont have to respect any conventions.
What will they do? Wade slowly through the countryside and scavenge toasters and hairdryers from houses that have long since been abandoned by their
owners the moment that news of an invasion came through?
Not everyone is able to move and take his wealth with him, majority of people cant. How can factory owner move his wealth?
Remember, in a stateless society, you also don't know who has a weapon and who doesn't. Which means any citizen can and likely will be armed. This
sort of uncertainty is an absolute nightmare for any mobilized army.
If the corporation has better equipped and bigger army than all citizens combined, attacking would be pointless, and guerilla tactics will not be
effective after they seize peoples remaining weapons. There is no reason why they would not do it, it is not "democratizing" occupation like
Afghanistan or Iraq.
Also, what would these armed citizens -- which greatly outnumber this army -- be doing in the mean time? Playing Xbox and waiting for a new fascist
state to be erected? No.
Maybe they will, you know the unthinking majority. And does not matter if they are outnumbered, war is no longer about numbers, but money, equipment
and technology. 100 soldiers with cutting edge equipment and many times more money and resources can beat 10 000 average wealthy citizens with rifles
and 20th century military arms easily.
You cannot take over a stateless society. It would be the most difficult, frustrating, inefficient campaign in history. When there is no state, there
is no central power structure to take over.
New central power structure can be set up pretty easily, why need to take over the old? If there is no central power structure to oppose the take over
so it would be easier, IMHO.