mastodon - Link to source

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

in reply to HeavenlyPossum

mastodon - Link to source

HeavenlyPossum

When people ask “who would keep us safe from interpersonal harms in the absence of the state,” the best answer is: we will, alone or in voluntary cooperation with others.

And some people find this answer unsatisfying, because their conception of interpersonal harms and self-defense is shaped by our present experience of being at the mercy of very large, very powerful coercive institutions called “states.” It’s difficult for many people to even imagine being able to stand up to an aggressor.

The absence of a state makes the victory of bad people feel *inevitable*.

But consider Iceland, or Luxembourg, or Liechtenstein, or San Marino: tiny countries with few means of defending themselves against much larger, more powerful neighbors that nevertheless remain independent.

This is just an analogy, and no analogy is perfect. But consider that our neorealist conception of international relations or a philosophical belief in a Hobbesian war-of-all-against-all would render the existence of a country like Iceland impossible.

2/2

in reply to Jamie

mastodon - Link to source

HeavenlyPossum

@jamie

Iceland possesses a critical geostrategic position that led the UK to occupy it in the 1940s to prevent a Nazi invasion and the US to offer defense guarantees to prevent a Soviet invasion.

If we take seriously the argument that the absence of some central, coercive authority creates a vacuum that is inevitably filled by predatory actors wishing to do harm to the weak, then Iceland should not exist as an independent state.

@Jamie
in reply to HeavenlyPossum

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Jamie

In general I agree with you but I do not agree with any threat. The most aggressive threat is from the US. No one else attacks just to show they can. Even the UK should be sorting out it's military but the UK is a major threat not a potential victim. The UK helped bomb Russia last weekend yet cannot even get an aircraft carrier across any sea. Iceland has not threatened or bombed anyone. At some time in the future a threat may arrive and now is the best time to start preparing so in that way I agree with you but the propaganda that the US comes out with is simply that. Greenland has no place in US security, they simply wish to steal their resources. If Russia wanted to fire a missile at the US it would not cross the Arctic. The shortest route from western Russia is across Europe and from eastern Russia they have a border with the US. Where does Greenland come into this. If Canada was the target it would be different and Canada has sent military to fight Russia but I do not think they were taken seriously. I believe that NATO is a aggressive force to threaten Russia so I believe we need a new peaceful force that is only for defence. There is currently support for this concept following the US expecting NATO help in Iran where the US was the aggressor. That made the other countries wary but this is not the first time. When the US attacked Iraq NATO did help yet the situation was so similar it is weird. All the experts said the US was wrong but the US was accepted yet turned out to be wrong. So NATO is broken and we need a respected international organisation that can go toe to toe with any aggressor even the US. It will be hard to get Russia back into the fold given that NATO has been mainly aimed at them. Unless we replace NATO we will find it very hard to widen the scope. Russia wanted to be part of our team but a war machine needs an enemy, not friends. Peace is not as hard as people think but we are the problem not Iran, Russia or China. Iran has not attacked another country for over 200 years. Russia spent 8 years trying to get Ukraine to agree a peaceful settlement and stop bombing the ethnic Russians but Ukraine tore up the Minsk agreement and chose war. China gave up colonialism hundreds of years ago before Captain Cook's trip. Captain Cook bought his maps from a Chinese captain who had already sailed around the world and returned home to find China no longer had any interest in the rest of the world. Britain has given up on colonies but the US now wants vassal states. A new form of colony. OK, I will shut up but I think you get my point. I agree that you should improve defence but the only threat is the US. If Russia takes an interest they will make a good offer rather than invade like the US. As they have in Africa.
in reply to HeavenlyPossum

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Jamie

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.
in reply to Jamie

mastodon - Link to source

HeavenlyPossum

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.

This entry was edited (Monday, 22 June 2026, 22:40)
in reply to HeavenlyPossum

ActivityPub - Link to source

Cy

It is really freeing to realize that "All non states on earth have been taken over by a state" is itself propaganda. Every time Britain or France planted a flag and said "This is ours now" the people who agree with that are statist. States have brought unspeakable violence on the people they've conquered, but those people are only conquered in that the state says they are. It's the old argument at the playground:

"I beat you that means you have to do what I say."
"No it doesn't!"

Conquered anarchists haven't bought in to the claim that they are conquered, or that anyone can be conquered, and then it's just a matter of having enough power to resist.

in reply to Cy

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Jamie

Venezuela is not the first. Iraq still does not own the oil they produced. The money goes into US banks and most of it disappears. The rest is one of those debts like Iran's billions that the US keeps. I could go on but the list is long and Iraq was over 30 years ago. France set the stage with the Sahel where they made out that as they were not present so it was not colonised but all income had to go through French banks. I think the idiot in chief thought he could do the same with Iran. I am ashamed to say that I was happy when the oil companies told him what they thought of Venezuelan oil but that does not make it right.
in reply to Jamie

ActivityPub - Link to source

Cy

Why are you defending the USA's claim to that stuff? You talk like it is undeniable reality, that their authority is absolute. They won, Venezuela lost, and Venezuelans have to do what the bully says now. You claim.

The USA only "own" who they are currently holding at gunpoint. Everything else isn't an agreement. We don't agree with what banks own. We don't recognize the USA's claim to Iraqi oil. We don't recognize Iraq's claim to Iraqi oil. It's just oil.

in reply to Jamie

ActivityPub - Link to source

Cy

The guy with the bigger gun always walks in and enslaves people. No matter how democratic, or how well thought out your system is, it will fall to a big enough disparity in wealth and power, and such disparities never stay small. You must make it so no one can have the bigger gun. Which is anarchy.

I don't think a hierarchical state exists that does not serve to give one guy a bigger gun than everyone else.

in reply to Cy

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Jamie

That is not anarchy, that is a dream. Anarchy is lack of state so no one can say that the next person cannot have a bigger gun. I lived in Azerbaijan at the end of the anarchy following the end of the Soviet Union. The first thing I noticed was the door to my flat was more like a steel safe door. During the anarchy people would arrive in pick up trucks and take what they liked including the women so the people that made the most money were those that sold steel doors. It is not a good place to be. Aliyev is one of the worst leaders I have ever lived under but he is better than anarchy. You sound like the socialist that believes that everyone will be equal and ends up with Hitler. No where is perfect but we need to get better not worse.
⇧