Quote Originally Posted by FryingMan View Post
The Soviet Union was not Russia. Have you studied the entirety of Russian history? They were invaded and oppressed so many times, from the West and from the East, repeatedly, that they very understandably have developed a highly sensitive attitude towards security. In fact, Russia has been *amazingly restrained* in their responses to unbelievably provocative actions by the US and the west, where if the US were put in analogous situations to the ones they're placing Russia, the US would have gone apish!t a long time ago. The bolsheviks represented external forces, and did not represent historical Russian culture.

Recognizing the undeniable evils of the Soviet period, the Russian people could not be completely subdued, there were still amazing developments within the Soviet times: unparalleled literacy rates and education, arts, culture, and so forth.
The Russian Revolution was conducted by Russians, and they ruled the country and formed an empire. The Soviet Union is also known as Soviet Russia. The country now called Russia was part of the Soviet Union. However, we are off topic.

No matter what you think of whether Russia would invade a large land with no government, my hypothetical still involved a Russian invasion. My question is how such a thing should be handled. You can substitute in a country you believe would engage in such a conquest. There are lots of them. The issue I am trying to analyze is how anarchy could work, including how invading militaries could be handled without a government.

Quote Originally Posted by Voldmer View Post
Yes, and that is why he would be willing to reach an agreement.
That is not guaranteed. What should happen if he doesn't?

Quote Originally Posted by Voldmer View Post
If his noise bothers his neighbours, then they have to defend themselves against it. Building a soundproof wall would do the trick. It is not his obligation to provide their protection.

However, building such a wall costs money and effort, and that is why the neighbours would be willing to reach an agreement.
What would they be willing to tolerate? Do you see a possibility that somebody wouldn't agree to it?

Quote Originally Posted by Voldmer View Post
Certainly true. But if you look back over the same history, you will find that conquest always implies taking over the power structures left by the previous government. If there are no such power structures to take over, then conquest becomes rather hopeless, since it would require too much effort, because it would be necessary to build these power structures from scratch - which is very expensive (witness the cost of modern government).
It is generally resources, including land itself, that rulers are after. Every piece of land on this planet was taken over by a government at some point. Most of the land has been taken over by multiple governments.

Suppose that the hypothetical I described really happened, all the way to the end. At that point, how should it be handled?