>From: Fred Foldvary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > As for "defense," a decentralized, stateless society would present few > > concentrated targets of value to foreign predators; it would have no > > central government to surrender; > >Tell that to the American Indians.
OK, adding the proviso that the defenders have better than neolithic technology. The civilian population of North America has more small arms than all the regular armies in the world, I read somewhere. And there's a lot of folks in places like the northern Rockies states (and here in the Ozarks) with HAM radio networks, night vision equipment, and lots of how-to stuff by Kurt Saxon. > > and local citizens' militias, federated as needed, > >OK, but "federated" implies unified. Ultimate authority is decentralized, >as >the lower units may secede, but the militias are unified into a federated >whole that then can indeed provide continent-wide defense. But how does a loose federation of local militias, organized from the bottom up, alter my point about the need for taxation? _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
