The title of this article may seem a little strange, for how can an anarchist society have a nation? Is this not counter intuitive? I do not think it is. In order for there to exist a state of anarchy, you would have to have enough anarchists living within a geographical area to constitute an autonomous society. They would necessarily be conscious enough of the boundaries of other nation states to know where to go and not to go. Of course, if the anarchists inhabited an island or an entire continent all to themselves, boundaries would not matter. Let’s assume, for the sake of this argument, that there is a clearly defined anarchist nation. There is no central authority within those geographic borders, so how would the members of this civilization defend themselves from an aggressive foreign power hell bent on dominating them?
The first answer I will give you is, I do not know for sure. I can venture several guesses, which is what I will do here, but I know for certain that the creativity of free individuals is far greater than my own imagination. This is why anarchy is so necessary. No one person or group of people has all of the answers. To assume so is to limit your potential for success and possibly doom you to perpetual cyclical failure as we have seen throughout history with the rise and fall of empires. So, where to begin?
Let’s start on an individual level. Within an anarchist society, the individuals will know that self-defense is their own responsibility, so they will either be competent in it on their own, or they will hire reputable third party providers of self-defense. There will also be insurance companies that will undoubtedly have an incentive to protect the property they are insuring, and subsequently would spend a portion of their capital on a defensive system. I can also think that the incentive to simply assassinate the leader of the aggressing nation would be high, so a bounty would be placed upon his or her head from within the anarchist society. Finally, the logistics of taking over an anarchistic society are insane as there is not one capitol to take over. The army cannot just march into Moscow and take over the whole country. The foreign invaders would have to completely pervade the entire country. This gets to the crux of the argument; economics.
Wars are waged by governments with a monopoly on the money supply. Monopoly control of money, and a fiat currency system, are necessary because aggression is extremely expensive. In man power alone, an invading force needs three soldiers for every one defending soldier. If there is a technological disparity, as there would be in this situation with the anarchists having the clear edge (I am confident in this argument because we have seen the prosperity in America, and it is only mostly free. Individuals completely free will accomplish unimaginable feats!), the costs rise even more for the invaders.
Governments, when going to war, always print more paper money and issue bonds, i.e. go into enormous debt to pay for the campaign. They thrive at the expense of their citizens and the unborn citizens yet to come. The anarchist society on the other hand will necessarily have a sound currency, based upon precious metals, digital currency, and/or something else yet to be imagined. This guarantees advantage over all other currencies in the world, and thus affords the anarchist state the ability to buy off any army. If you are a soldier being paid one million dollars to fight in the army invading my country, but you are fighting for a country whose money is worth little more than a Zimbabwean dollar, how quickly am I going to sway you into fighting for me if I pay you in gold? This is also why placing a bounty on the heads of the invading army’s country would be so high. If you were granted asylum within a completely free country, plus a million ounces of gold to kill the president of your country, would you not give it a shot?
Answering the question of how an anarchist society would defend itself is quite easy when you apply some critical thinking and imagination to it. Unfortunately, all those advocating for government rule were most likely not reasoned with as children, and were most likely spanked. They turned out alright though… But I digress. Violent, coercive aggression is a product of government. If people want to be free, they will throw off their shackles of government once they see how awesome the anarchist society is. Even if a maniacal warlord comes to power in some third world nation, they pose no threat to the anarchist nation. No government would as no government could undertake the cost of that war.
As will quickly become a recurring theme, anarchy will always win out in the end because it is based upon a rational, objective morality. Government, violence, coercion, aggression, and fiat money will be relegated to the dust bin of history, and humanity will discover, finally, what it truly means to flourish!