A new kind of war: a guerrilla war

A tasty little morsel from Murray Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty that was posted Mises.org last week:

The first thing to do was end the occupation of Philadelphia, which at best had been a waste of time. Howe had thought of Philadelphia as equivalent to a European capital: the hub and nerve center of administrative, commercial, political, and military life. But in a decentralized people's war such as the Americans were waging, there was no fixed nerve center; indeed, there was scarcely any central government at all. All this gave the Americans a flexibility and an ability to absorb invading armies in a manner highly statified Europe could not understand.

Share this

I don't trust Rothbard

He liked to imagine that the American revolution was fought for his principles, but it wasn't. I discuss that here and Mencius Moldbug went over it later in his "Why I am Not a Libertarian" post which you discussed here. Bryan Caplan questioned whether there was anything to celebrate on the Fourth of July here.

It wasn't a guerrilla war either. Our Continental Army met the enemy face to face in classic European style. They frequently lost, but won important battles. The theater with the most "irregular" action was the South, and it was still the siege of Yorktown (hardly something guerrillas should ever be engaged in at either end) that decided things there. See Wikipedia.

Actual guerrillas tend to fight for pretty screwed up causes. I wouldn't want to associate it with libertarianism, but a lot of people find "rebel chic" infectious.

He does tend to

He does tend to oversimplify, which is what this excerpt does, but he still captures an important angle.
As far as more famous historical guerrillas, I wouldn't cede them the entire style of fighting. The Irish Revolution, however illibertarian certain parts of its mission were, was a successful guerrilla effort and one that I'd like our tradition to remember.
The better objection is that we don't favor violent rebellions at all. That is usually true, but not because violence is never justified. It just rarely works.

There has to be a center for

There has to be a center for everything. It is basically what holds all things together. To be clearer, a centralized system aids in one governing source which all others follow, making it more organized.

No, there is no need for a

No, there is no need for a center in everything. Any centralised algorithm can be distributed, and likewise any centralised governance system can be replaced by a distributed method. In a chaotic system, or a dissipative system like the human society, the distributed versions are systematically better than their centralised counterparts - for example in the economic domain, catallactics outperform planning.