Sunday, September 09, 2012

The danger of having a State

A free society, one without a centralized government, doesn't need to worry too much about being invaded and conquered. This is one of the "yeah, but what if"s that people present in opposition to true liberty. They think that without Washington DC, and it's armed goons, keeping out the invaders, Chinese troops (or whoever the speaker personally fears) will overrun America and annex us.

Then there's reality.

Consider this recent offering from Fred Reed concerning why it is so hard for empires to defeat one particular region:

"In Afghanistan there are no targets of high value to destroy, no clear lines of supply to be cut, no cities whose capture means you win, and no concentrations of enemy to be easily killed."

And this is in a region where there is little liberty. Add real liberty to that equation and the odds are stacked even more in favor of the home team. Without a city to capture and win, you have to defeat each and every individual. It won't happen.

The State endangers me and it endangers you. Stop pretending otherwise.



  1. Decentralization is the key to maintaining security and liberty. US loyalists have it backwards when they chant, “United we stand, divided we fall.” If fact, reality is just the opposite. “Divided we stand, united we fall.”

  2. Also known as putting all your eggs in one (too large to handle) basket.

  3. Hi Kent,

    That is one of Fred's best. When I read it, I thought to myself, if I "get it", why can't others? Do our appetites and fears completely disable our rational faculty?