Defending free societies

‘Might makes reality’

• “Might makes reality” is the oldest rule of the world. It does not mean “might makes right.”
  • It means that the people who can impose their will on others, are the ones who get to mandate what laws exist in reality. Wouldn’t it be better if those who designed the best laws for optimizing human well-being and life on earth got to mandate what laws exist? Yes, but reality is what it is.
  • The people with the most effective military get to make the laws. In other words: “the person with the biggest gun gets to make the rules.”
• If the people in the 3L Movement want to make the laws, they must control the biggest guns. To be clear, this does not mean we should covertly or violently gain control of the biggest guns. The most effective way to gain and retain control of the biggest guns is to win the hearts and minds of enough people. Indeed, in a democracy, this is precisely how we determine who controls the biggest guns.
• 3L Movement seeks to peacefully gain control of the biggest guns to use them solely to outlaw all forms of aggressing.

Expect the best, plan for the worst

• Seeing the best in others:
  • Free societies would be wise to recognize humanity’s highest potential, and not create enemies simply by labelling others as such.
    • Authoritarian regimes like North Korea and Cuba thrive on the narrative that they exist in opposition to other nations, specifically the USA, fixing both sides in polarized competition.
    • 3L communities should see no-one as an enemy that does not aggress against them, and seek to maximize prosperity for all by extending trading relations with all peaceful individuals. When we see the best in others, we allow and foster that potential in them.
• Planing for the worst:
  • The first objective of a newly formed free society must be to defend itself.
  • Unreasonable people do and will exist – we must not be naive to this fact.
  • Voluntarily investing in means of best-in-class protection is essential – without defense, all the creative efforts of that community are endangered.

Organizing voluntary defense

• A free nation, one completely aligned with the Legal Principle, including no taxation, must be able to defend itself from aggressors. It is of course possible, but not guaranteed, that such voluntary cooperation in defence could be superior to coercively organised aggressors.
  • One advantage for free nations is that it only has the aggressor as an enemy. A coercively organised nation also has its own people as an enemy – they could rise up against their oppressor at any moment. This makes a coercive state inherently vulnerable. The aggressive state must use resources to maintain internal control as well as on invading others.
• There is no reason that voluntary national defense cannot be better funded and better structured (coordinated and collaborative) than a coercively-funded invador.
• Harnessing technology and playing to the strengths of a decentralized defense would be key for preserving peace and freedom.
  • A coercive aggressor naturally lacks the fast-paced flexibility and creativity of a free society, and their centralization of power creates vulnerabilities in their infrastructure and chain of command.
  • In a free society, every competent adult without a history of violent crime would be able to own a safely-stored firearm or other means of self-defense, which hugely increases the costs/risks to any potential invaders.
  • Because decentralized societies allocate capital better, their ability to produce wealth and technologies would be superior. Resource efficiency, scale, discipline and voluntary coordination would be essential for any free society’s self-defense strategy.
• International trade treaties and the wealth benefits that ensue, would be essential for reducing the incentives for invaders.
• Joint defense agreements with other free societies would be an other excellent deterrent and defense.

Cautions from history

• Relatively free societies have been overcome by centralized powers more often than not in the past.
  • Examples include the Greek city-states being beaten by Persia in 495 BC, the Gallic tribes beaten by Romans in 52 BC and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth being wiped from the map by Russia and Prussia in 1795.
• History also teaches that maritime powers should not get dragged into a land conflict, unless it’s to win at the end when the aggressors have exhausted their resources.