Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

is rigorously limited to the individual
criminals. We may judge for ourselves how
many wars or conflicts in history have met
this criterion.(93)
While the "bow and arrow could be used for aggressive
purposes. it could also be pinpointed to use only
against aggressors," he continues. But "Nuclear
weapons, even' conventional' aerial bombs, cannot be.
These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscrimininate
mass destruction••• We must, therefore, conclude
that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the
threat thereof, is a sin and acrime against humanity
for which there can be no justification."(94) Thus,
contemporary states, with their panoply of modern
weaponry, can "protect" their citizens only by exposing
them to the perpetual risk of total annihilation.
Also important for the anarchist is the fact that
modern wars are (a) financed by taxes and/or inflation
and (b) fought by conscripts. This means, that war can
be waged only by governmental aggression against the
states' own citizens. Hence, far from the state protecting
its citizens it is actually the citizens who
are both duped, by pleas to defend the "fatherland"
from the "foreign aggressors," and forced, by taxes and
conscription, into defending the state and its ruling
group. "A State can only 'die' by defeat in war or by
revolution. In war, therefore, the State frantically
mobilizes the people to fight for it against another
State, under the pretext that it is fighting for
them."(95) In short, maintains the anarchist, the view
that the state is necessary to protect its citizens is
a myth.
But how could such a society defend itself against
foreign aggression? Anarchists believe that it is possible
to defend the nonstate in the same way that they
see 0 the r pro b 1 ems be i ng handIed: the rna r ke t • Jar ret
Wollstein argues that private defense companies could
raise capital by selling "defense bonds" and repaying
the p r inc i pIe and i n t eres t from reven ue 0 b t a i ned by the
sale of either products or rights to inventions resulting
from technological spin-offs.(96) Even granting
that private companies would operate more efficiently
than governmentally operated defenses, it is doubtful
that the number of technological spin-offs would be
enough to cover the costs, must less to leave enough
left over for profit. The same problem would apply to
Da v i d F r i e dman's s u g g est ion t hat a I lor pa r t 0 f the
369