So, in a society completely without government, what stops warlords?

[BobRobertson]

The question in the topic is a little different from the question in the post. Government is an idea, and will not disappear overnight.

In a society without government, people would stop warlords.

What is so magical about government that private people seeking a profit can't solve the problem?

There's nothing magical. There is nothing that interested individuals voluntarily interacting cannot accomplish better, and cheaper, than government.

Just look at every place and time that the "government" agents abandon a territory because it's too dangerous. People who live there, who work there, get together and defend themselves.

In the year after the formation of the Vigilance Committees in San Francisco there were fewer murders, including the actions of the Committees, than in the month before.

But if that happens, what differentiates bands of people from a government? Because then it would be the same thing.

No, it's not.

Government is the institution with the monopoly on the "legitimate" initiation of force.

It can change the rules at will and make everyone subject to them, only with government can the policy "ignorance of the law is no defense", every private organization must get voluntary agreement before subjecting someone to their rules or the contract is void.

What we have now is a gang that uses extortion, kidnapping and murder at will to enforce its edicts. The rationalization is that "it would be worse without the gang", but history shows that this is absolutely untrue.

[TimeLady Victorious]

But if that happens, what differentiates bands of people from a government? Because then it would be the same thing.

No, it's not.

Government is the institution with the monopoly on the "legitimate" initiation of force.

It can change the rules at will and make everyone subject to them, only with government can the policy "ignorance of the law is no defense", every private organization must get voluntary agreement before subjecting someone to their rules or the contract is void.

What we have now is a gang that uses extortion, kidnapping and murder at will to enforce its edicts. The rationalization is that "it would be worse without the gang", but history shows that this is absolutely untrue.

If these people banded together they would think of themselves as having the "legitimate" monopoly on force. Then they would be the same as what you perceive to be a government. Probably worse, since a government today likes to think that it has obligations to its people, such as roads, schools, firefighters, etc.

A Vigilance Committee, incidentally, is exactly what I would consider to be a proto-warlord state.

[BobRobertson]

If these people banded together they would think of themselves as having the "legitimate" monopoly on force.

It's clear that there is no redirecting your intention, if you're going to go ahead and put thoughts and motivations in other people's minds.

Simple fact: Without that legitimacy enjoyed by government, individuals can defend themselves from aggression without the assumption that they are in the wrong, and without  the assumption that it's fine to be brought up before more agents of that same institution and be "judged" impartially.

Just removing the monopoly that the state enjoys would mean they a single institution won't be able to tax, legislate, prosecute, judge and imprison all at the same time.

Probably worse, since a government today likes to think that it has obligations to its people, such as roads, schools, firefighters, etc.

You're just rationalizing. There is no justification beyond placating the subjects to keep them from open revolt.

There must always be more subjects than rulers, since the rulers cannot take everything or they create people with nothing left to lose and thereby enable revolt.

A Vigilance Committee, incidentally, is exactly what I would consider to be a proto-warlord state.

"Proto"? Care to elaborate, then, why a "neighborhood watch" isn't a proto-warlord condition too?

[Riddler]

It you make your prediction into a quatrain, maybe I would believe you.

you can run & you can hide,
you can build a fortress on a mountainside.
you can bar the windows ,the doors, arm to-the-teeth those within,
but in the end, we'll  get you, my pretty, you, your little dog, and your women, especially those without sin...

[Diogenes The Cynic]

But if that happens, what differentiates bands of people from a government? Because then it would be the same thing.

No, it's not.

Government is the institution with the monopoly on the "legitimate" initiation of force.

It can change the rules at will and make everyone subject to them, only with government can the policy "ignorance of the law is no defense", every private organization must get voluntary agreement before subjecting someone to their rules or the contract is void.

What we have now is a gang that uses extortion, kidnapping and murder at will to enforce its edicts. The rationalization is that "it would be worse without the gang", but history shows that this is absolutely untrue.

If these people banded together they would think of themselves as having the "legitimate" monopoly on force. Then they would be the same as what you perceive to be a government. Probably worse, since a government today likes to think that it has obligations to its people, such as roads, schools, firefighters, etc.

A Vigilance Committee, incidentally, is exactly what I would consider to be a proto-warlord state.

Pablo Escobar thought he had an obligation to others as well. Thats why he funded housing, zoos, medicine, etc for people.

[TimeLady Victorious]

A Vigilance Committee, incidentally, is exactly what I would consider to be a proto-warlord state.

"Proto"? Care to elaborate, then, why a "neighborhood watch" isn't a proto-warlord condition too?

Neighborhood watches don't string people up if they think they're guilty of something without a trial.

[digitalfour]

what differentiates bands of people from a government?

The fact that bands of people are funded voluntarily.

[BobRobertson]

Neighborhood watches don't string people up if they think they're guilty of something without a trial.

Governments do.

[TimeLady Victorious]

Neighborhood watches don't string people up if they think they're guilty of something without a trial.

Governments do.

As do vigilantes... which was my point.

[TimeLady Victorious]

A Vigilance Committee, incidentally, is exactly what I would consider to be a proto-warlord state.

Late 17th and early 18th century London?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief-taker

Neighborhood watches don't string people up if they think they're guilty of something without a trial.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but based on your posts here it appears that some sort of due process is all that is required in order for any large society to escape "warlord" status.  What quality distinguishes legitimate systems of redress from illegitimate systems, perhaps like those that might have existed in the "warlord" society of Genghis Khan's time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial

Thief-takers seemed to have been generally lawless themselves (in an England where then, as is now, one seemed to be forbidden from defending oneself from one who would take one's property), and The Trial is a work of fiction that reflects the subconscious mind of Franz Kafka.

Again, if you honestly can't tell that our society is fundamentally different from that of the Mongol Horde (which, incidentally WAS known for its brutality, and did not generally leave "well enough alone" to those who would toe the line), we cannot converse. The USA and most First-World countries are not warlord states because they do not function as such. Most of them do not engage on outright wars of conquest; there is a civil authority to be appealed to; and violence is the exception, and not the rule, to challenging legislative, judicial, and executive authority. (Not deleting your posts, though. That whole "post deletion" thing is mostly to keep out the bizarre ramblings of NHArticleTen)

[AL the Inconspicuous]

(Quoting my original post in its entirety, with the part Rillion singled out and marginalized highlighted in bold.)

(1)  The only difference between a petty thug with a gun, a small-time gang of crooks, a slave-owning plantation, a Mafia crime family, a warlord, a principality, and state / national / world governments is their size.  The former, if not met with proper resistance, eventually find it in their interest to grow into the latter, "democracy theater" and all.

(2)  This has been debated endlessly on a number of forums (ex) with no conclusive theories on why an upstart warlord would be able to brainwash people more effectively than Mommy Government brainwashes them today, thus every warlord will be overwhelmed by billions of people who don't want to be its slaves.  Absence of government can only come about through wide-spread acceptance of the Non-Aggression Principle, which also means wide-spread resistance to new threats to one's life, liberty, and property.  If we can resist a trillion dollar nuclear monopoly on force whose claims of "divine right" to power trace back to antiquity, then resisting some crackpot Dr. Evil wannabe would be a piece of cake!

(3)  The government should not collapse 100% in one day (or one decade), nor should we want it to.  The crisis after the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe perfectly demonstrates that people (and thus markets) need time to adjust to greater amounts of liberty.  What we need is gradual progression toward ever-stricter Minarchism, with ever-more intergovernmental competition, until enclaves of Anarcho-Capitalism can finally be allowed to emerge and grow organically on the basis of competitive advantage.

No. The fact that they all have in common something bad, something you object to, does not make them the same.  [...]

There obviously are similarities and differences between those aggression-based institutions, and I am arguing that the main difference between them is size - everything else is circumstantial.  (I was wrong, however, to include "slave-owning plantation" on that list, because it does not initiate all of its aggression itself, but benefits from a much larger state through which slavery is institutionalized.)

It is every rational warlord's best dream to convert his despotic dominion into something resembling Sweden, where his "subjects" could be kept on a much longer dogleash and thus be much more profitable overall, in spite of the fact that some fraction of the wealth they produce would be reinvested in the infrastructure of your dominion, and some fraction given to them as an incentive to work harder / smarter.  The transitions from a thug to a warlord to a prince to an empire to a modern "liberal democracy" happened over many generations, however, with a single ruling individual turning into a dynasty and then into a self-selected class of government thugs in the process.

[BobRobertson]

Again, if you honestly can't tell that our society is fundamentally different from that of the Mongol Horde (which, incidentally WAS known for its brutality, and did not generally leave "well enough alone" to those who would toe the line), we cannot converse.

Then we cannot converse.

I see no difference what so ever between this gang of self-justified murders and that gang of self-justified murderers.

Both live by taking what they want from peaceful people against their will. Both use overwhelming violence against anyone who has the balls to defend themselves in any way against their predation.

Again, if you honestly cannot grasp that the sheen of legitimacy is all that protects the few predators from having the vast majority of peaceful people throw them off, then we cannot converse.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Again, if you honestly can't tell that our society is fundamentally different from that of the Mongol Horde (which, incidentally WAS known for its brutality, and did not generally leave "well enough alone" to those who would toe the line), we cannot converse.

Then we cannot converse.

I see no difference what so ever between this gang of self-justified murders and that gang of self-justified murderers.

Both live by taking what they want from peaceful people against their will. Both use overwhelming violence against anyone who has the balls to defend themselves in any way against their predation.

Again, if you honestly cannot grasp that the sheen of legitimacy is all that protects the few predators from having the vast majority of peaceful people throw them off, then we cannot converse.

So, lemme get this straight. Since you lump every government system, and nonsystem together they are all equally invalid. As such, there is no fundamental difference between Ancient Mongolia, East Germany, and Revolution era America.

[TimeLady Victorious]

Again, if you honestly can't tell that our society is fundamentally different from that of the Mongol Horde (which, incidentally WAS known for its brutality, and did not generally leave "well enough alone" to those who would toe the line), we cannot converse.

Then we cannot converse.

I see no difference what so ever between this gang of self-justified murders and that gang of self-justified murderers.

Both live by taking what they want from peaceful people against their will. Both use overwhelming violence against anyone who has the balls to defend themselves in any way against their predation.

Again, if you honestly cannot grasp that the sheen of legitimacy is all that protects the few predators from having the vast majority of peaceful people throw them off, then we cannot converse.

So, lemme get this straight. Since you lump every government system, and nonsystem together they are all equally invalid. As such, there is no fundamental difference between Ancient Mongolia, East Germany, and Revolution era America.

This, they are all different societies and as such have different sorts of governments.

f you consider the government of Cuba and the government of, say, Greenland to be the same you may as well move to Cuba; at least it's warm there.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Again, if you honestly can't tell that our society is fundamentally different from that of the Mongol Horde (which, incidentally WAS known for its brutality, and did not generally leave "well enough alone" to those who would toe the line), we cannot converse.

Then we cannot converse.

I see no difference what so ever between this gang of self-justified murders and that gang of self-justified murderers.

Both live by taking what they want from peaceful people against their will. Both use overwhelming violence against anyone who has the balls to defend themselves in any way against their predation.

Again, if you honestly cannot grasp that the sheen of legitimacy is all that protects the few predators from having the vast majority of peaceful people throw them off, then we cannot converse.

So, lemme get this straight. Since you lump every government system, and nonsystem together they are all equally invalid. As such, there is no fundamental difference between Ancient Mongolia, East Germany, and Revolution era America.

This, they are all different societies and as such have different sorts of governments.

f you consider the government of Cuba and the government of, say, Greenland to be the same you may as well move to Cuba; at least it's warm there.

Dude, didn't you know that Congo is the same as the US?  The governments are both governments, they are the same!