They wouldn’t be able to do it for very long. Within a day of two, they’d try to shake somebody down who wants to cross the border and has a machine gun.
In the anarchy zone, there’s nothing stopping you from setting up your own border roadblock. And there’s nothing stopping you from shooting anybody who sets up a border roadblock.
It’s like thinking the cops can’t arrest you in the anarchy zone. Why can’t they? There’s no law saying they can’t arrest you. They can arrest you, put handcuffs on you, beat the shit out of you, plant evidence on you, not read you your rights, and then drag you back across the border into their own country. Who are you going to complain to? They didn’t break any laws. There are no laws in the anarchy zone.
That’s the problem with anarchists. They’re all imaging they can go around and be free to do whatever they want. But they also imagine that there’s some invisible force protecting them from everyone else.
What trained anarchists ? I missed that bit. What stops them from becoming border guards ? The odious and ignominious life of wearing a uniform and being told what to do by stupid people is one thing. You ever been told what to do by stupid people ? I have, it grates after the first few seconds and turns to serious pissed off after about a minute.
But look, it wouldn’t come to this because the state would recognize the benefits of such an arrangement. Border wars are very costly, as is policing people who don’t really want to be policed. Anarchic, fuzzy border zones would be big money savers, and excellent places for the wearied, bossed around state citizen to go for a holiday, just for a couple of weeks of no submission to superiors.
Here you illuminate a point which is that criminal organisations are not anarchists. A lot of people go on about anarchy as crime and disorder, but the biggest crime is orderly, hierarchical, and often made in collusion with the state - just look at Mexico.
And there’s no law saying they will get paid for it, either, because the state pays them to police the state, not the anarchy zone. If they want to play baddass in the anarchy zone then voluntary cage matches can be arranged.
Meh, Foreign Policy. People like Rhodes created both Foreign Policy and half the problems of Africa at the same time. The foreign policy establishment of the USA seems to like nothing better than to operate outside of the law, and cause chaos and bloodshed all over the place. Hardly think they are people to preach or look to for their talents in bringing order.
Not inevitably. Anarchy simply means that there is no centralized authoritarian structure to react to and deal with violence and disorder, but that by itself does not guarantee that the citizenry are helpless to regulate and enforce peace and civil order.
Anarchy in the OP’s context, I think, means not subject to the sovereign authority of the neighboring nations, nor bound by the threats of international sanctions…
Well there’s still costs with that. Every driver has to buy a gun at the border of the anarchy zone and sell it on the other side, because machine guns are broadly illegal in the States. or he has to pony up 10k or so for an NFA weapon and wait months for all the permits. And the shipping companies have to pay their drivers more because they don’t want to drive through a warzone.
Yes, the United States does tend to cause some chaos all over the world, not just inside the borders of the US but outside it as well. Ask the people in the middle east who’ve had American bombs dropped on them.
The United States doesn’t bother keeping its nose out of other sovereign states, why would we keep our hands off anarchic zones?
Of course people can live in anarchy. People do it all the time. You can resolve your disputes with your neighbors personally or via trusted third parties, you don’t have to rely on the government.
The problem comes when you get indignant when non-anarchic (I know I could just write “archic” but that looks stupid) actors get involved. Oh, Tony Soprano is not an anarchist? Yes, that’s exactly right. That was my point. Tony Soprano is not a free individual deciding his fate by himself. He is a cog in a tightly organized hierarchical organization, where he gives orders to his subordinates and takes orders from his superiors. That’s why the call it “organized crime” and not “some guy who commits crimes”.
Mafia crime families are a system of government that runs along lines that would be intimately familiar to anyone living in the feudal era. Feudalism is exactly equivalent to organized crime, the only difference is that there aren’t any cops. Tony Soprano’s motives and methods are exactly the same as the first guy who noticed that it was a lot easier to grab a sword and take his neighbor’s wheat harvest that it was to bust his ass plowing and planting and reaping and threshing for months.
But since most governance is exactly the same thing as organized crime, how exactly do you expect to do away with governance? It’s not enough to say that without laws you can’t have crime, since it does me no good to say that it’s not a crime for Tony Soprano to threaten to shoot me in the face unless I pay tribute. It doesn’t matter if we call it a “crime” or not, I’d rather avoid getting shot in the face and I’d rather avoid paying his tribute.
Except there’s really no way to avoid paying that tribute. Either I can pay a salary to armed men who protect me from bandits, or I can pay the bandits. And note that the armed men I pay to protect me from bandits may be indistinguishable from the bandits, the only difference is that they’re on my side.
So since we can’t get rid of organized crime, and organized crime is simply a particular type of government, any attempt to do away with government simply means rule by organized crime. Note that lots of places in the world really are in a very literal sense ruled by organized crime, the only difference is that there are no cops–or rather, that the organized crime neckbreakers and kneecappers wear police uniforms.
If a guy who committed a crime in New York gets arrested in New Jersey and New York cops go to New Jersey to extradite him back to New York, you think those New York cops aren’t getting paid? Cops get paid for doing their job regardless of where they happen to be doing it. If they happen to be working outside of their home state, they still get paid.
There you go with your imaginary protector again. Why would anyone agree to participate in a voluntary cage match if they have an advantage outside of the cage? Why obey the rules of a cage match when there’s nobody to enforce them? If you can win an unfair fight, why would you agree to a fair fight?