Should we actively promote actions that contribute to PNBP within the framework of current law? For example, the acquisition of hunting rifles or gas pistols, martial arts training (and which ones?), the creation of voluntary militias to counter criminal violence, etc.? In general, does it mean that every “ideological” libertarian should possess at least some weapon or combat skills?
Continuing regarding self-organized people’s militias. If their goal is to apprehend actors of unorganized violence (hooligans, bandits, etc.) and hand them over to the state, can they be considered a successful example of a first step toward PNBP under statism?
Muscovite
In short, yes, we should, and yes, they can. Now, in more detail.
The key condition for maintaining anarchic social orders is a mass readiness to personally exercise one’s rights and an unwillingness to delegate them to anyone without serious benefit. Therefore, naturally, skills for ensuring both personal and public security through cooperation greatly help to push out of one’s head the idea of the state as something vitally necessary.
Now let’s go through specific activities.
Martial Arts — I am not particularly well-versed in them, but the main benefit is removing the psychological block before inflicting pain on another, and the fear of having pain inflicted on you. So, contact martial arts are preferable; otherwise, it’s just a variety of gymnastics, which, however, is also useful.
Knife. The most effective tool for kitchen disputes, and doubtfully effective on the street in an equal fight. It is intended, essentially, for a surprise attack or improvised self-defense with whatever is at hand. Therefore, specifically training with a knife is unlikely to be very relevant if the readiness to strike can be developed in some other way.
Pepper Spray. In conditions of a ban on rifled short-barreled firearms, it is the primary means of street self-defense; it works, as we saw on January 23, even against a buffed OMON officer. The skills for use are simple. The effect is easily verified even on oneself: the consequences are instant, and there is no long-term harm to health.
Civilian Firearms. They cannot be used on people, and one cannot train on people, so the only thing they are good for is developing skills on targets, assuming these skills might come in handy at the moment when you stop caring about what is “forbidden.” An additional downside to owning legal weapons is that they are seized after two administrative offenses, which can be received for literally anything; thus, the possession of a weapon motivates one to stay quiet and not stir—and this particular skill is rather harmful to train for building an ancap society.
Militias. An excellent legal way to develop skills in team power interaction, without serious risk to health, without a drop in income, while earning real authority among neighbors. If militiamen catch real aggressors rather than violators of public morality, then such associations are certainly worth joining. Again, in far from every case does it make sense to hand detainees over to the state. Judging by certain publications, self-proclaimed law enforcement associations in those remote corners where cops were last seen in the last century are usually inclined to resolve matters on the spot, and legal norms will inevitably emerge from this tradition. Ancap is the decentralization of law, so militias are exactly what the doctor ordered.
The obvious downside of militias is the disgusting smell of officialdom already emanating from the phrase “voluntary people’s militia.” Here, of course, it would be good to organize everything so as to practice doublethink less, but that is difficult to guarantee.
