This article was originally posted here.

Warfare is the central hubris of the state. I recently wrote an article that invoked much anger and appreciation: Fear and Loathing in the U.S.M.C. For God & Country. As I watched the reactions to the article and discussions around the internet I noticed something. Those who were most angry with the article defended the brainwashing techniques of the U.S.M.C. as necessary to carry out the warfare they saw as necessary. Some questioned if the goal could be reached by different means. Few actually asked the questions I often ask and challenge others to ask. Do we need this military and these wars to begin with?

Alan Moore once stated: “00001% of the worlds’ population that causes 99.99999% of the worlds problems… It is leaders.” The statist would teach us that these wars are for our good and for our protection. The statist would say that by this act of mass murder we find freedom. When I write of how elements like the military are the might of this government power I oppose, people become angered. The statist will tell me that some evil gang will come in use violence against us and take control. Many will say that some evil power will abuse the freedom that exists under Anarchy. I completely agree that is exactly what has happened.

We live in anarchy naturally. Anarchy is the natural state of humankind. We just so happen to live in that badly conceived anarchy that people fear where the most aggressive powerful gangs have gained control and asserted their tyranny on every corner of the globe.

In order for these criminal gangs to maintain control they must use the force of their military and police. It is a simple concept, kill or cage those who will not agree with us. There is nothing new in all of this. As I pointed out in: The natural history of the state, government is a barbaric criminal model used for personal gain. The government apologists use utilitarian arguments to justify their crimes against humanity. Truly what use is a military? Well self defense of course, except when it’s not. Often the state justifies it’s invasions with utilitarian apologetics to paint it as defense. The case if Iran comes to mind. Operation Ajax was used in the 1953 to gain power over another state leading to a long history of attack and retaliation.

We need defense not invasion forces. The statist truly realizes this which is why they will justify the invasions of the state by claiming the offense is defense. The initiation of force is not defense. The initiation of aggression is invasion. The idea of ‘get them before they get us’ is the classic conservative battle cry. Without this criminal power the state ceases to exist, and all the systems that remain become voluntary. It is this society we are striving for. Not the savage rape and pillage model that the state is as seen in the natural history of government, but a truly civilized society.

I pointed out in my article: Anarchy for Conservatives, if the pro-state conservative claims to cling to the idea that products and services improve under a free market why would defense not be improved by ending the government monopoly? I make this point because the conservative tends to be the biggest pro-militant voice. Maybe the system of defense will not immediately see improved models, but with time we can make those advancements. The exact advancements are unpredictable and irrelevant. What is relevant is that defense is removed from the state monopoly so such advancements can begin.