It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Waging War

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 01:14 PM

A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

I would argue that the definition of War is also a fitting definition of taxation.

The act of taxation is an act of warfare against a nation's populace by the State through the use of armed conflict.

It is interesting to note that War between nation States can not exist without a State first waging War against its own population through the use of violent expropriation of resources.

It is also interesting to note that War between a "nation" without a State and a nation with a State is impossible.

Let us consider the consequences of such a scenario.

If America was simply a collection of businesses protected by private security, such as Brinks or Arrow Security, what is there to attack? What benefits would an attacking nation gain that it could not gain through trade alone?

Say Russia wanted access to America's oil. Is it necessary for Russia to attack and invade the US in order to get access to that oil? Wouldn't they simply buy a plot of oil land and stick a well in the ground?

Say China wanted access to America's iron ore. Wouldn't it be easier for China to fund an American entrepreneur to buy and build an iron mine?

What if violent extremists decided to train "terrists" in the hills of Montana and attack China. Would China invade the entire nation to deal with that problem? Wouldn't it be easier for them to simply buy the land the "terrists" were operating on and have an American private security company deal with them?

If there was no nation State forcibly collecting taxes in America, how would an invading nation take control of the population? Wouldn't they have to install their own people as a government? What American citizen would recognize the legitimacy of such a government? Since no American would recognize the authority of them, who would obey them?

As we are finding out right now, the reason why we can't "conquer" Afghanistan is because none of the Afghan people recognize the central government as having any legitimate authority.

If a super power can't take over a simple country of goat herders because the population doesn't recognize the government they installed as legitimate, how in the hell could any nation hope to take over the US in a state of anarchy?


War without the State is impossible.

The existence of the State itself is War.

A nation with a State is in a perpetual state of War against its own people.

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:06 AM
Who decides what is owned or capable of being sold?

For instance - two real-estate companies claim the rights to sell a piece of land after the owner passes and has no heirs (or, the two have always hotly disputed each other, you know how Century 21 and Caldwell go at it, sometimes). How is this settled? A court system?... oh, wait....

War is entirely possible without the state. The corporate world is more of a "spy war" than it is a military war - but with a complete exchange of power to private enterprises - each large enterprise will become a "state" for all intents and purposes - taking out contracts of industrial espionage, sabotage, and full-blown military engagements.

Now, one could argue that form of warfare is preferable to entire nations conducting full-scale warfare - but that's a point of perspective.

As for whether or not another nation would invade territories governed by business interests - there's really no more or less qualitative or quantitative reasoning involved by comparison to the arguments for/against invading a whole nation.

Let's say Canada were to get a wild hair up their anus and decide they wanted what we now call Maine (not sure why they'd want that place - but, I'm not sure why Canada would ever make the decision to invade). "Maine" (or the territory formerly known as) is primarily dominated by one large corporation with little market penetration into other regions, and other companies have a difficult time competing in Maine. A small section of Maine is annexed as part of Canada, and brought under their laws. No problem - a few small towns with only local businesses - corporate simply signs a deal to allow business to continue in Canada.

The expansion slowly continues - not much violence is associated - People and businesses are slowly brought under Canadian taxation policies. Paying taxes to Canada is far cheaper for corporate than is contracting a war. It's not what the people want, but they have no real unified means of contracting with security companies for a war, other than corporations, which are not obliged to control or dominate territory. Many corporations would simply sign over deals to continue operating within Canada and pay taxes.

Now - the people can simply take a stand and conduct a ground war - but you're looking at a heavily weighted conflict. While people may have firearms - few would have the budget or the need for such things as anti-tank munitions, combat aircraft, and other rather useful military assets. PMCs (Private Military Contractors) would stay out of it, for the most part, as the people could not levy the means to fund a military contract - and the corporate interests would rather pay taxes than pay for a war.

Why would Canada want to claim additional jurisdictions? To make them pay taxes and support their own system. They don't have to come in and upstage the business sectors (and provoke a war) - all they have to do is say: "you're paying our taxes now, unless you'd rather contract a war."

Of course - they could simply want extra territory that isn't frozen 90% of the year (in which case, they would probably be shooting for some place other than Maine - but you get the idea). Perhaps they've got their own Third Reich going on - who knows what their reasons are - but the methodology could be employed regardless of the motive.

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Aim64C
Who decides what is owned or capable of being sold?

For instance - two real-estate companies claim the rights to sell a piece of land after the owner passes and has no heirs (or, the two have always hotly disputed each other, you know how Century 21 and Caldwell go at it, sometimes). How is this settled? A court system?....

Private arbitration.

We have this today already.


log in