> So I ask the anarchists and libertarians, exactly how does one negotiate a territorial claim (or defend their property right) with an unmatchable armed force that happens to be a necessary military ally?
I think you misunderstand the anarchist libertarian position (BTW, not all libertarians are anarchists, some will agree with you that a state is required to guarantee property rights).
I don't think libertarian anarchists will dispute the fact that potential force is required to guarantee rights.
I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion though from what's going on in antarctica.
The relevant conclusion to draw is that parties can have competing claims and resolve disputes without a central authority, without a total war, and without the strongest party ending up with full control.
However a potential conflict in antarctica will unfold it's unlikely that we'll see a major military confrontation, or that one country will end up controlling the entire continent. That is, property rights (between nations) will be allocated relatively peacefully, and I would guess in proportion to the "investment" of the nations in the continent.
If you're concerned about individual property rights vis-a-vis nations, that's a different question, but it's not what libertarians talk about when they draw on international affairs for an analogy of anarchy.
> I have often argued with libertarians (and anarchists) that the existence of property rights first requires the existence of a government with a monopoly on coercive force (ie. government requires the largest armed force). If such an entity didn’t exist, then the largest armed force would simply take control and become the government. Many voices in these debates suggested that I need only look to international treaties to show how cooperative we can be without the need for world police.
I always thought the idea of property rights enabled by a state monopoly on violence was a mainstream view. I don't even understand why libertarians and anarchists don't believe this given I also identify as a libertarian.
> So I ask the anarchists and libertarians, exactly how does one negotiate a territorial claim (or defend their property right) with an unmatchable armed force that happens to be a necessary military ally?
I think you misunderstand the anarchist libertarian position (BTW, not all libertarians are anarchists, some will agree with you that a state is required to guarantee property rights).
I don't think libertarian anarchists will dispute the fact that potential force is required to guarantee rights.
I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion though from what's going on in antarctica.
The relevant conclusion to draw is that parties can have competing claims and resolve disputes without a central authority, without a total war, and without the strongest party ending up with full control.
However a potential conflict in antarctica will unfold it's unlikely that we'll see a major military confrontation, or that one country will end up controlling the entire continent. That is, property rights (between nations) will be allocated relatively peacefully, and I would guess in proportion to the "investment" of the nations in the continent.
If you're concerned about individual property rights vis-a-vis nations, that's a different question, but it's not what libertarians talk about when they draw on international affairs for an analogy of anarchy.
> I have often argued with libertarians (and anarchists) that the existence of property rights first requires the existence of a government with a monopoly on coercive force (ie. government requires the largest armed force). If such an entity didn’t exist, then the largest armed force would simply take control and become the government. Many voices in these debates suggested that I need only look to international treaties to show how cooperative we can be without the need for world police.
I always thought the idea of property rights enabled by a state monopoly on violence was a mainstream view. I don't even understand why libertarians and anarchists don't believe this given I also identify as a libertarian.