Iceland is a very tiny country. It has no standing military. It also occupies a highly strategic location. And yet is has not been invaded since the UK occupied Iceland in the 1940s (to prevent Nazi Germany from invading).

Iceland is able to to do this because it is a member of a wider alliance of states that are committed to cooperating in defense of Iceland against external aggression. These states have never actually gone to war to preserve Iceland’s independence. The mere existence of these guarantees has been sufficient deterrent for the last 80 years.

1/2

@HeavenlyPossum I would suggest you read history. The Romans would be a good start as well as the Vikings. Simply because you lack defense does not in any way stop anyone else from creating offensive force. You are entitled to your opinions but history supports mine. All non states on earth have been taken over by a state. Mostly during the feudal times but then the colonial times arrived and it was more of the same. Basically the British sailed up, shot a few of the locals, planted a flag in the beach and declared the land British if it did not belong to someone else. Often the British would declare an island British and find out that the Spanish had already declared it Spanish then got bored and sailed off. So two states owned it. The absence of a state simply means that that land is for anyone to take. The man with the biggest gun will win.

@jamie

I am quite familiar with history, thanks.

If we start with the conditions of anarchy—the absence of rulers and rule—then no one enjoys any advantage over anyone else. There is no class of people who spontaneously enjoy some privileged access to violence that you would lack in your self-defense.

If you’re talking about the possibility of losing to a more powerful adversary, then you’re talking about a risk that is intrinsic to the human condition and not somehow limited to people living in anarchy.

Follow

@HeavenlyPossum
> If you’re talking about the possibility of losing to a more powerful adversary, then you’re talking about a risk that is intrinsic to the human condition and not somehow limited to people living in anarchy.
It's kinda worse when you don't have laws and police to protect you from them though (not discounting that the police themselves can be bullies also).
Or is there a special anarchist way of dealing with that? Presents from family of perpetrator to victim or family thereof, like some Native American tribes did?
@jamie

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.