You honestly don't need the state as a check, all you need is a group made up of volunteers that function like a militia that are well armed. To claim that we need the state as a check is to make the claim that it would be impossible for people to organize themselves voluntarily to defend themselves against aggressors which is simply not the case. Let's just take Rojava as a perfect example where people from different backgrounds and faiths organize themselves against outside aggressors even at the most extreme situations. Check out this link for more information. http://bravetheworld.com/2015/06/02/anarchy-lives-rojava/
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The British colonies freed themselves with citizen militias, not the Continental Army. Washington was great at talking his way our of capture, but terrible at warfare. He trusted regimentation, standard methods of warfare. He did not trust the militia, but later after numerous successes of theirs he tolerated them. The militia broke all his rules of warfare, and succeeded. He got the credit, at least in the history books that survived; the books promoted by the state, for the state, in state schools.
But it was volunteers who gathered spontaneously, fought without a central plan, without coercion, on their own (without Army), and used non-traditional guerrilla tactics to best the regular British Army. They disbanded and regrouped on their own judgement. Is this generally known? What popular literature tells this in no uncertain terms? None. Why? Could we be living in a very controlled world?