Reading through this Samizdata post, and recalling the conversation I had with Obo, the question of politicised, militant expansionist Islam has once again caused me to re-evaluate where I stand on the political spectrum.

Let me say straight off, I have nothing against muslims particularly, and the way that modern muslim immigrants (as opposed to the influx of Pakistani immigrants that occured before I was born and who’s offspring I grew up with) tend not to integrate, keep within their own communities or even their tent-wearing penchants bother me not one jot as long as I’m not paying for it. Chinese people have been doing the same all over the world (minus the tent-wearing) for centuries without a problem. The protest marches and ‘death to the infidel’ placards do worry me, I will admit, but I have a hard time accepting that they should be stopped or banned, not least because that sets a precedent for stopping protests and banning marches.

And this is where it starts to get sticky. Not only does Islam stand for everything that I am against (and it has every right to) but even Vanilla Islam is ostensibly dedicated to spreading its creed by the sword and its more militant cousins just get worse from there. A little digression is in order here, perhaps.

My conversation with Obo, in which he pretty much conviced me on the merits of full-blown Anarcho-Capitalism centred mainly on my hangup that we need a State to protect us from other states… and his rejoinder that a fully-armed anarchic society that had to be taken street by street, village by village would simply not be worth the cost to any potential invaders. Ironically, the open sore that is the Afghan conflict is the most current example of this… showing that merely taking the capital (and even a few other cities besides) of a nation that is used to having no government doesn’t really get you a lot, except a lot of wasted time, money and lives.
Unfortunately, it also gives us another example. The fact that huge expenses in money, time and lives do not neccesarily put off ideologically-driven opponents. The ideology of the GWOT is only a decade old, and yet it has sustained that bizarre war, what sustenance then could an ideology many times that old give to conflict? Islam conquored Afghanistan, a place that even Alexander hurried through and a place that has defied in modern times the full might of both the USSR and USA.

So what then, of our putative anarchist Greater Britain and Associated Islands? Should the rest of the West fall (and given that world domination is in the very warp and woof of Islam, and given the extensive penetration of the West by unassimilated muslims and the Western penchant for appeasement, multiculturalism and special treatment for certain groups I’m far from convinced that it won’t) when the Jihadis reach our shores do I really think that a war lasting decades and costing maybe thousands of lives (all sent not down to Hades but off to 72 virgins) would put them off?


Which kinda leaves me stuck. Again.


One response to “Quandry

  1. Which is why I lean more towards minarchist government rather than An-Cap. An-Cap’s defence argument works just fine when attacked by an enemy that’s halfway rational or has any desire to keep what’s there standing and current occupants alive when it’s all over. As you point out that’s why we’re struggling in the ‘Stan.

    The UK on its own could reduce much of the place to gently glowing slag with one email to a submarine captain, and the US could make even the ashes wish they’d never been born. But despite accusations of Bush and Blair (and Howard) spoiling for a fight, or even just Bush and the others followed along sycophantically, the Allies have never approached the conflict with an attitude that if push comes to shove destroying everything and killing everyone will be okay. Advantage to the man in the cave. Reverse the positions and imagine an An-Cap western nation being invaded by an Islamic nation with a professional army that believes not only in the doctrine of ‘Kill them all, God will recognise his own’ but also that it doesn’t matter how many of their own troops get killed because the same thing applies. How long is your town going to last when they’re not only willing to blow up the whole place but have a queue of wild eyed volunteers who are happy to hit the switch and priapic at the prospect of going up with their enemies? That’s a serious challenge for a regular army, let alone ad hoc An-Cap self defence which might well be less than it could have been if significant numbers were happy to let their neighbours bear the costs of getting tooled up.

    And on that point, how many citizens in an An-Cap society will personally invest in the really heavy duty kit? Armed citizens are great but if no-one coughed up the millions for air defence and the other side have ground attack aircraft… see what I’m getting at? Yes, it didn’t help the Yanks in the Mekong but that doesn’t mean the same will apply in Milton Keynes. Buckinghamshire has no jungle to run to, hide in and counter attack from. Most western nations will be in the same boat to a greater or lesser extent, so as anti-state as I am I think the one government service that will remain essential is maintenance of a force with serious Don’t Fuck With capabilities to protect the borders and make sure that those within can stay free. It’s flawed, sure, but so is being unable to stand against a better armed enemy who doesn’t give a rip if either of you survive. Such is life.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s