Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Somalia

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 12:23:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"If anarchy is so great, why don't you move to Somalia!"

This has become the *facepalm* argument to anarchists just as "But what about the roads!" has been to libertarians. I figured I'd post a thread to refer to for the next time someone brings this up.

Somalia is not an example of true anarchy. True anarchy involves a gradual change in society by voluntary means to eliminate the State. What happened in Somalia was simply a coup that failed, and everything fell all at once without anyone understanding the philosophical meaning of a free society.

Somalia has been victimized by big first and second world governments for decades. The regional Islamic court system that mediated personal and regional conflicts looked somewhat voluntaryist, but was wiped out after being labeled an "evil doer" and slated for freedomizing via explosive ordinance.

While it's true that people in Somalia have suffered in recent years, people are quick to point to the lack of the State as the reason. What's really happening is that Somalis are getting sick from nuclear waste. Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories (who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply). Somalis have been given no clean-up, compensation or prevention.

At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. Western fish stocks seem to have been over-exploited, so we have moved on to theirs. More than $300 M worth of tuna, shrimp, lobster, etc. is 'stolen' every year by trawlers illegally sailing into Somalia's unprotected seas. As a result the local fishermen are having their livelihoods compromised, and the population has been starving.

So let's talk about Somali pirates. "Everyone agrees they were ordinary Somalian fishermen who at first took speedboats to try to dissuade the [nuclear waste] dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a 'tax' on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia. One of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali, said their motive was 'to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters... We don't consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Another point about Somalia to consider is that it's misguided to compare two completely different countries (like them and the U.S.) on government or how they handle statelessness. The question to ask is whether they were better with or without the State. Most quality of life metrics have shown significant improvement in Somalia; plus now they are rid of a brutal dictator. With the exception of the drop in birth rates (which is ambiguous) and the drop in access to safe water (which is clearly a bad thing), there has been great progress on numerous fronts in Somalia, including but not limited to life expectancy, death rate, GDP per capita, infant mortality and adult literacy.

http://mises.org...

Stateless Somalia is no paradise, but its lack of a corrupt, brutal government has given it an advantage over its former self and its current peers in similar African nations. Society takes time to adjust and Somalia has a long way to go. America is light years ahead of Somalia from a cultural standpoint, so imagine how much better off WE would be without the State.
President of DDO
PrivateEye
Posts: 972
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 12:46:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The American Government being dissolved is as fairy taley as anything else. And then not necessarily for good at all. Why would things be better? What you're proposing is mob rule against socialist democracy/civilized discussion.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 12:59:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 12:23:39 PM, Danielle wrote:
"If anarchy is so great, why don't you move to Somalia!"

This has become the *facepalm* argument to anarchists just as "But what about the roads!" has been to libertarians. I figured I'd post a thread to refer to for the next time someone brings this up.

Somalia is not an example of true anarchy. True anarchy involves a gradual change in society by voluntary means to eliminate the State. What happened in Somalia was simply a coup that failed, and everything fell all at once without anyone understanding the philosophical meaning of a free society.

Somalia has been victimized by big first and second world governments for decades. The regional Islamic court system that mediated personal and regional conflicts looked somewhat voluntaryist, but was wiped out after being labeled an "evil doer" and slated for freedomizing via explosive ordinance.

While it's true that people in Somalia have suffered in recent years, people are quick to point to the lack of the State as the reason. What's really happening is that Somalis are getting sick from nuclear waste. Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories (who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply). Somalis have been given no clean-up, compensation or prevention.

At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. Western fish stocks seem to have been over-exploited, so we have moved on to theirs. More than $300 M worth of tuna, shrimp, lobster, etc. is 'stolen' every year by trawlers illegally sailing into Somalia's unprotected seas. As a result the local fishermen are having their livelihoods compromised, and the population has been starving.

So let's talk about Somali pirates. "Everyone agrees they were ordinary Somalian fishermen who at first took speedboats to try to dissuade the [nuclear waste] dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a 'tax' on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia. One of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali, said their motive was 'to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters... We don't consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Another point about Somalia to consider is that it's misguided to compare two completely different countries (like them and the U.S.) on government or how they handle statelessness. The question to ask is whether they were better with or without the State. Most quality of life metrics have shown significant improvement in Somalia; plus now they are rid of a brutal dictator. With the exception of the drop in birth rates (which is ambiguous) and the drop in access to safe water (which is clearly a bad thing), there has been great progress on numerous fronts in Somalia, including but not limited to life expectancy, death rate, GDP per capita, infant mortality and adult literacy.

http://mises.org...

Stateless Somalia is no paradise, but its lack of a corrupt, brutal government has given it an advantage over its former self and its current peers in similar African nations. Society takes time to adjust and Somalia has a long way to go. America is light years ahead of Somalia from a cultural standpoint, so imagine how much better off WE would be without the State.

Well that was predictable. When discussing ideology, it just comes to a matter of what constitutes such an ideology or not. If the outcomes are good, it represents ideology *X*. If its outcome are bad, it doesn't, or even represents the opposing ideology.

Mainly because any ideology usually has very broad definitions anyhow.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 1:08:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And you're really telling me that the majority of Somali's problems can be attributed to radioactive toxic waste dumping. That's laughable. Like diseases from radioactivity is the main health concern in Somalia. Also, should be noted that even though its toxic waste, its still in containers that contains the radioactive materials and most of the radiation.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 1:16:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 12:46:03 PM, PrivateEye wrote:
What you're proposing is mob rule against socialist democracy/civilized discussion.

It's fallacious to assert that anarchy = mob rule. Anarchy is a world without rulers.
President of DDO
PrivateEye
Posts: 972
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 1:27:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 1:16:30 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/13/2013 12:46:03 PM, PrivateEye wrote:
What you're proposing is mob rule against socialist democracy/civilized discussion.

It's fallacious to assert that anarchy = mob rule. Anarchy is a world without rulers.

You're fallacious.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 1:27:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 12:59:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Well that was predictable. When discussing ideology, it just comes to a matter of what constitutes such an ideology or not. If the outcomes are good, it represents ideology *X*. If its outcome are bad, it doesn't, or even represents the opposing ideology.

Mainly because any ideology usually has very broad definitions anyhow.

Well that was a predictable criticism: accusations of semantics.

Actually, what I did was explain how the problems of Somalia stem not form the lack of State, but from the aggression of others. Did you combat that? No.

I also pointed out how Somalia was better off without the State than with the State, but of course you didn't respond to that part either.

"And you're really telling me that the majority of Somali's problems can be attributed to radioactive toxic waste dumping. That's laughable."

Straw man. I never said that the majority of Somalia's problems was attributed to toxic waste dumping. I merely pointed that out as a big problem that plagues not only a huge Somalian industry (fishing), but attributes to their lack of resources and food for those citizens. Do you deny that fact?

And to what magical entity do YOU attribute the majority of Somalia's problems? If you are naive enough to say "No State," then I expect you to provide an in depth explanation as to what the State can do to solve their problems that the people of Somalia cannot do (...good luck considering the State is nothing but people recognized as being in authority; a position which they maintain through violence just as rebel groups do).

"Like diseases from radioactivity is the main health concern in Somalia."

Again, I never said that. The main health concern in Somalia are high mortality rates - which have improved since their government collapsed in 1991 (I noticed that you conveniently ignored the point about how the standard of life index notes improvements in that country since then). They also have a lot of disease just as most African countries do. As such, you can't argue that having a State is helpful toward thwarting disease since all of Somalia's statist neighbors are plagued with the same health problems.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 1:57:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 1:27:54 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/13/2013 12:59:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Well that was predictable. When discussing ideology, it just comes to a matter of what constitutes such an ideology or not. If the outcomes are good, it represents ideology *X*. If its outcome are bad, it doesn't, or even represents the opposing ideology.

Mainly because any ideology usually has very broad definitions anyhow.

Well that was a predictable criticism: accusations of semantics.

Well that was a predictable criticism to my criticism. Doesn't change that its true.

Actually, what I did was explain how the problems of Somalia stem not form the lack of State, but from the aggression of others. Did you combat that? No.

Aggression from others will exists in any system because humans are naturally aggressive, due to both biological reasons and incentives for aggression. Do you deny that?

I also pointed out how Somalia was better off without the State than with the State, but of course you didn't respond to that part either.

Somalia has improved because ALL african nations have improved since the 90s. Hell communist regimes had economic growth and an increase life expectancy, but they grow slower than non-communist regimes.

But, the main criticism I'd have w/ anarchists is the binary distinction between state and anarchy. What constitutes a state is difficult to define and really has gradient powers. For example, often times the government is said to have a monopoly on force. I call this nonsense. I wouldn't even say it produces the most force (again mileage may vary on what constitutes force, since it includes threats of coercion).

And, so what? North Koreans might be better off w/out a state (whatever a state is anyhow), but that doesn't negate that anarchy is better than statism.

"And you're really telling me that the majority of Somali's problems can be attributed to radioactive toxic waste dumping. That's laughable."

Straw man. I never said that the majority of Somalia's problems was attributed to toxic waste dumping. I merely pointed that out as a big problem that plagues not only a huge Somalian industry (fishing), but attributes to their lack of resources and food for those citizens. Do you deny that fact?

"While it's true that people in Somalia have suffered in recent years, people are quick to point to the lack of the State as the reason. What's really happening is that Somalis are getting sick from nuclear waste"

One can infer from this position that you believe this. Since you listed this as "what's really happening", one can infer that you think its the majority of Somali's problem. In fact saying that it's the "majority problem" is actually giving you too much credit, since saying "the majority problem" puts less weight on the issue than "what's really happening'.

In terms of denying the fact, I'm not sure how much the fishing industry has suffered due to toxic dumping and other fleets coming inside. But considering that plenty of nations survive off agricultural and some nations are even landlocked, this isn't an issue that should destroy an economy in the long-run.

And to what magical entity do YOU attribute the majority of Somalia's problems? If you are naive enough to say "No State," then I expect you to provide an in depth explanation as to what the State can do to solve their problems that the people of Somalia cannot do (...good luck considering the State is nothing but people recognized as being in authority; a position which they maintain through violence just as rebel groups do).

I don't know enough about Somalia and I don't want to spend the time doing an in-depth analysis. It's some combination of institutions, culture, biology, and geography.

There are institutions that states provide though. Rule of law, protection of private property, enforcement of contracts, banking system, and public infrastructure (ex: roads). A state may or may not provide these institutions. However, providing these institutions will create more prosperity, all things being equal.

"Like diseases from radioactivity is the main health concern in Somalia."

Again, I never said that. The main health concern in Somalia are high mortality rates - which have improved since their government collapsed in 1991 (I noticed that you conveniently ignored the point about how the standard of life index notes improvements in that country since then). They also have a lot of disease just as most African countries do. As such, you can't argue that having a State is helpful toward thwarting disease since all of Somalia's statist neighbors are plagued with the same health problems.

See above.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 3:36:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 1:57:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Well that was a predictable criticism to my criticism. Doesn't change that its true.

This is a moot point considering by your own admission, semantics or accusations of semantics can be used to win any debate. I posted another thread about feminism, and a handful of people (most everyone who responded) said they did not agree with feminism - and yet not a single person provided a comprehensive definition of feminism despite my fervent requests. They just cherry picked things they didn't like, and claimed that all self-professed feminists represented feminism as a whole. The same is done when discussing the Occupy movement, Christianity, capitalism, or almost anything.

But back to Somalia. Is Somalia a good example of anarchy? Well it currently has a federal government, a Prime Minister and a central bank - so no I don't think it qualifies as such by ANY definition of anarchy that I have seen. But yes, semantics pose an issue in any discussion. Instead of anarchy, how about the term voluntary? I am a voluntaryist. When radical militias emerge to use force over the populace, that is not voluntaryism. That's aggression. It's the same thing the state uses (violence) to maintain its control over the people.

Aggression from others will exists in any system because humans are naturally aggressive, due to both biological reasons and incentives for aggression. Do you deny that?

Anarchists support voluntaryism, not aggression. Your point is that aggression is inevitable, but that argument in favor of statism collapses on itself. If aggression is inevitable, than A) why favor statism since it still occurs, and B) why favor statism when statism itself is inherently aggressive?

Anarchists acknowledge statism as aggressive and therefore oppose it just as they oppose ALL aggression, even though aggression is probably inevitable. They don't see statism as a viable resolution. The argument then becomes which is preferable: statist aggression or other aggression? Anarchists default to the latter, because the latter does not have a legal monopoly on violence that uses force to coerce people into funding that aggression.

"The State does not defend us; rather, the State aggresses against us and uses our confiscated property to defend itself." -- Hans Herman Hoppe

Somalia has improved because ALL african nations have improved since the 90s. Hell communist regimes had economic growth and an increase life expectancy, but they grow slower than non-communist regimes.

I don't have a side by side analysis comparing Somalia or every other African nation from the 1990s to today. However that isn't really the point. Somalia has improved or more importantly not worsened since the 90s. That proves that the State is not necessary. There also hasn't been proof or even an analogous example indicating that Somalia would have been better off WITH the State.

But, the main criticism I'd have w/ anarchists is the binary distinction between state and anarchy. What constitutes a state is difficult to define and really has gradient powers. For example, often times the government is said to have a monopoly on force. I call this nonsense.

Government is not defined as having a monopoly on force; the State is.

Why is it a nonsense definition? The State absolutely does have a LEGAL monopoly on force and conflict resolution via regulations by the federal government.

"Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services, and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet."

- Joseph A. Schumpeter. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and Bros., 1942. p. 198.

And, so what? North Koreans might be better off w/out a state (whatever a state is anyhow), but that doesn't negate that anarchy is better than statism.

NK might be better off with or without a state. But even if NK was better off WITH a state, that is not an argument in favor of statism. And likewise even if NK was better off WITHOUT a state, that alone would not be a good argument for anarchy. The fact still remains that using force, coercion and aggression to maintain control over a populace is still immoral even if it yields "better" results. Noting the success of territories without a state is just used as an example to prove that societies can exist and even thrive without the state being necessary, since some seem to believe that the state is a "necessary" evil.

One can infer from this position that you believe this. Since you listed this as "what's really happening", one can infer that you think its the majority of Somali's problem. In fact saying that it's the "majority problem" is actually giving you too much credit, since saying "the majority problem" puts less weight on the issue than "what's really happening'.

Okay, let's go back. I did say that people automatically point to the lack of State as an explanation for poor conditions in Somalia.

Clearly that's complete BS, as that fails to explain the horrible conditions in Somalia before the government collapsed. More importantly, I asked you to explain what the "State" would do to improve conditions in Somalia that the people alone could not do. This is the utmost important part of my rebuttal; I eagerly await your response.

But yes, I did say "What's really happening...' and continued to reference nuclear waste. That's because it IS a huge problem for Somali industry, their food supply, their health (so many people are getting sick from it), crime (see: piracy and other looting from foreign sailors) and otherwise. So sure, affecting a country's trade, health and resources does seem like a pretty big deal.

I don't know enough about Somalia and I don't want to spend the time doing an in-depth analysis. It's some combination of institutions, culture, biology, and geography.

Okay, so by your own admission you have no idea what their biggest problems are and yet you automatically think the State would solve those problems...?

There are institutions that states provide though. Rule of law, protection of private property, enforcement of contracts, banking system, and public infrastructure (ex: roads). A state may or may not provide these institutions. However, providing these institutions will create more prosperity, all things being equal.

Oh no. You didn't. Did you really just say THE ROADS are a good reason to have the State? *facepalm* Yes, roads: a technological marvel so complex that only government agents could create them...

I see that you haven't explained why only a state could provide those things. On the contrary, Somalia's residents reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, consisting of civil law, religious law and customary law - just as they have in other anarchist societies throughout history. Also central banking systems are not only morally questionable (to say the least) but also incredibly problematic.

Also, your argument falls short considering Somalia had a state before 1991 - as do all other African nations - and yet most are still third world countries. So no, sorry, the state does not magically make things better. The state can just as it can and often does make it worse. But again being "better" does not justify the aggression, force and coercion that sustain the State.
President of DDO
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 3:42:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 12:23:39 PM, Danielle wrote:
"If anarchy is so great, why don't you move to Somalia!"

This has become the *facepalm* argument to anarchists just as "But what about the roads!" has been to libertarians. I figured I'd post a thread to refer to for the next time someone brings this up.

Somalia is not an example of true anarchy. True anarchy involves a gradual change in society by voluntary means to eliminate the State. What happened in Somalia was simply a coup that failed, and everything fell all at once without anyone understanding the philosophical meaning of a free society.

Ah, yes, philosophy is especially important in African tribal politics.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 4:21:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 3:36:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
Anarchists acknowledge statism as aggressive and therefore oppose it just as they oppose ALL aggression, even though aggression is probably inevitable. They don't see statism as a viable resolution. The argument then becomes which is preferable: statist aggression or other aggression? Anarchists default to the latter, because the latter does not have a legal monopoly on violence that uses force to coerce people into funding that aggression.

Well, firstly, that isn't entirely true. Private citizens are allowed to use force, they can just use force in very constrained ways. States also are constrained as to their actions, though.

Secondly, why should a legal monopoly matter in this regard? Why should I care whether or not something has a legal monopoly?

I don't have a side by side analysis comparing Somalia or every other African nation from the 1990s to today. However that isn't really the point. Somalia has improved or more importantly not worsened since the 90s. That proves that the State is not necessary. There also hasn't been proof or even an analogous example indicating that Somalia would have been better off WITH the State.

No, it doesn't prove the state is not necessary. Without a side-by-side, we can't tell whether it's rate of improvement has been the same, greater, or significantly less. If it has been significantly less, that may be a strike against anarchism (after controlling for other factors, of course).

But, the main criticism I'd have w/ anarchists is the binary distinction between state and anarchy. What constitutes a state is difficult to define and really has gradient powers. For example, often times the government is said to have a monopoly on force. I call this nonsense.

Government is not defined as having a monopoly on force; the State is.

Define government, then.

NK might be better off with or without a state. But even if NK was better off WITH a state, that is not an argument in favor of statism. And likewise even if NK was better off WITHOUT a state, that alone would not be a good argument for anarchy. The fact still remains that using force, coercion and aggression to maintain control over a populace is still immoral even if it yields "better" results. Noting the success of territories without a state is just used as an example to prove that societies can exist and even thrive without the state being necessary, since some seem to believe that the state is a "necessary" evil.

Why is it immoral, though? You're just arguing 'force/coercion is immoral'. That isn't going to get you very far.

Oh no. You didn't. Did you really just say THE ROADS are a good reason to have the State? *facepalm* Yes, roads: a technological marvel so complex that only government agents could create them...

The problem with roads isn't complexity. It's coordination and maintaining them. To maximize the effectiveness of your road system, you want to get the maximum benefit with as little money spent as possible. That can be hard to do without central planning.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 5:55:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 3:36:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/13/2013 1:57:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Well that was a predictable criticism to my criticism. Doesn't change that its true.

This is a moot point considering by your own admission, semantics or accusations of semantics can be used to win any debate. I posted another thread about feminism, and a handful of people (most everyone who responded) said they did not agree with feminism - and yet not a single person provided a comprehensive definition of feminism despite my fervent requests. They just cherry picked things they didn't like, and claimed that all self-professed feminists represented feminism as a whole. The tsame is done when discussing the Occupy movement, Christianity, capitalism, or almost anything.

Correct. Although I also commented in your thread, even if you define something, it still is vague. I pointed out before that saying for example "wanting equality for both genders", what constitutes equality is very vague.

But back to Somalia. Is Somalia a good example of anarchy? Well it currently has a federal government, a Prime Minister and a central bank - so no I don't think it qualifies as such by ANY definition of anarchy that I have seen.

Recently, it has had less anarchy. However, it only recently established its central bank.

But yes, semantics pose an issue in any discussion. Instead of anarchy, how about the term voluntary? I am a voluntaryist. When radical militias emerge to use force over the populace, that is not voluntaryism. That's aggression. It's the same thing the state uses (violence) to maintain its control over the people.

Same ordeal, different sh1t. Precise definitions are pretty rare though, so this isn't to blame you. You encounter more precise definitions in the sciences: physics, chemistry, and economics (real economics not just layman economics). But in the real world, most definitions are very imprecise.

Aggression from others will exists in any system because humans are naturally aggressive, due to both biological reasons and incentives for aggression. Do you deny that?

Anarchists support voluntaryism, not aggression. Your point is that aggression is inevitable, but that argument in favor of statism collapses on itself. If aggression is inevitable, than A) why favor statism since it still occurs, and B) why favor statism when statism itself is inherently aggressive?

It always amuses me how whenever asked a yes or no question,one won't obtain a yes or no question.

I support institutions that minimize aggression while also providing economic prosperity, and a state can provide them. Furthermore, I recognize that statism is inevitable when one has owns an abundant amount of resources. Perhaps if I own such a small amount of resources, that the cost of aggression is actually higher than the cost of obtaining those resources, I'd be left alone. But in a developed society, that's not the case.

The closest one can get to anarchy is groups fighting over jurisdiction over a geographical region. This fighting, of course leads to a lot of bloodshed and high amounts of aggression. Disputes arise, people won't concede, group loyalties exist, so fighting breaks out. A settler of last resort must exist that has the power to take out a group. This occurs in any private institution as well, where people have to interact w/ one another: there are rules and someone to enforce these rules.
A no-moderator situation on a forum or group is pretty disastrous. The mod has the power to ban anybody that displeases him or her and this arrangement works find. Of course, you could find examples of horrible mods, and absentee mods and explain this is why we should remove mods. Or state that mods have a monopoly of aggression, therefore there's no reason why one should want mods.

Then, you can criticize people who say "Oh but I want good mods, not these mods". But that's stupid and you of course are asking again for an absurd situation as well. Asking for "no government" is the same as asking for "good government" since you're asking for a case-scenario you can't control (which is what anarchists use to counter statists saying you can't control the state and the state will always be bad).

Of course, once you've establish land property, you've effectively created a form of a state, since one has "monopoly of force" on the property, since you have the right to use aggression if someone comes onto your land. If someone wants to come onto your lands, one can set certain rules that another has to follow. If he/she doesn't follow the rules you can initiate force on them, since he/she hasn't been following the contract, just like a state can do.

Perhaps you can get a group together and own a larger landmass. Create certain parameters for who can and can't enter your land. Rules he/she has to follow, and establish punishment for if these rules are broken. You can see where I'm going with this.

(continued)
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 6:24:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 3:36:02 PM, Danielle wrote:

Anarchists acknowledge statism as aggressive and therefore oppose it just as they oppose ALL aggression, even though aggression is probably inevitable. They don't see statism as a viable resolution. The argument then becomes which is preferable: statist aggression or other aggression? Anarchists default to the latter, because the latter does not have a legal monopoly on violence that uses force to coerce people into funding that aggression.

"The State does not defend us; rather, the State aggresses against us and uses our confiscated property to defend itself." -- Hans Herman Hoppe

See my critique as the state as the aggressor. Second off, opposing an aggressive institute which will result in more aggression, because you are against aggression seems pretty dumb. If you are against it for dentological reasons but not utilitarianism, it would seem as if there's no way to see through w/ you.

I don't have a side by side analysis comparing Somalia or every other African nation from the 1990s to today. However that isn't really the point. Somalia has improved or more importantly not worsened since the 90s. That proves that the State is not necessary. There also hasn't been proof or even an analogous example indicating that Somalia would have been better off WITH the State.

No it doesn't. It shows that the economy is growing as a whole and technology is improving. And their improvement can be attributed to external reasons caused via externals sources w/ states.

In terms of proof that Somalia would've been better off w/ a state? As I said, it would depend on a host of other factors and whether the state implements good institutions or not. However, there are African countries with tons of economic growth 6-9%. But yea, there's the whole "all else being equal" factor that one always needs to consider, and not all things are equal.

But, the main criticism I'd have w/ anarchists is the binary distinction between state and anarchy. What constitutes a state is difficult to define and really has gradient powers. For example, often times the government is said to have a monopoly on force. I call this nonsense.

Government is not defined as having a monopoly on force; the State is.

Government (from google)

1) The governing body of a nation, state, or community.
2) The system by which a nation, state, or community is governed.

Why is it a nonsense definition? The State absolutely does have a LEGAL monopoly on force and conflict resolution via regulations by the federal government.

No it doesn't. Yell "I hate n*ggers" and a bunch of racism in Harlem and see how long you last. Ever been hit before? Did you bother to report it to the police? Would the police done anything anyways? Would there have been negative repercussions for reporting it so you didn't do it?

The state is very unlikely to interfere much in your day-to-day life. And certainly your actions are dictated more through social pressure than anything. I'm wearing jeans and a polo shirt today. I could've worn anything today and I have freedom of expression, so why didn't I? Because I am restrained based on what's socially acceptable. I will obtain negative social repercussions for dressing differently. Hell, I might even get a beating.

So we've established that the state isn't nearly involved in force. You define it as "legal" though. But what makes it "legal" or "illega". Well the state does. So the reasoning becomes highly circular.

"Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services, and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet."

- Joseph A. Schumpeter. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and Bros., 1942. p. 198.


Mafia organizations ask for "fire insurance". If you don't give them fire insurance, they burn your business down. Is this a state then? Bully will beat you up if you don't offer him or her lunch money, is this a state?

Furthermore, as stated before, on land ownership leading to state formation, one can view the state as simply asking for land rent.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 7:05:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The point about the pirates is great. It backs up my hypothesis of "Anarcho-Piratism". The idea that there's actually a demand for supposedly statist things such as taxation and regulation and that, in absence of a government, people will still try to organize efforts for such things. The Somalia pirates are my idea in action. Funny enough, I didn't actually think of them when I coined the term.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 7:12:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 3:36:02 PM, Danielle wrote:

NK might be better off with or without a state. But even if NK was better off WITH a state, that is not an argument in favor of statism. And likewise even if NK was better off WITHOUT a state, that alone would not be a good argument for anarchy. The fact still remains that using force, coercion and aggression to maintain control over a populace is still immoral even if it yields "better" results. Noting the success of territories without a state is just used as an example to prove that societies can exist and even thrive without the state being necessary, since some seem to believe that the state is a "necessary" evil.

That's just seems really silly.

Well, "necessary" evil as the better alternative to anarchy. There's not too much argument on whether it can or can't exist. Could a country with other factors like good geography, biology, or culture do better than other countries w/out a state? Possibly. But it would be still be better with a good state.

Okay, let's go back. I did say that people automatically point to the lack of State as an explanation for poor conditions in Somalia.

Clearly that's complete BS, as that fails to explain the horrible conditions in Somalia before the government collapsed. More importantly, I asked you to explain what the "State" would do to improve conditions in Somalia that the people alone could not do. This is the utmost important part of my rebuttal; I eagerly await your response.

I told you what the state can do. Enforce contracts, protect property, establish public infrastructure, creating regulations and establish a central bank.

But yes, I did say "What's really happening...' and continued to reference nuclear waste. That's because it IS a huge problem for Somali industry, their food supply, their health (so many people are getting sick from it), crime (see: piracy and other looting from foreign sailors) and otherwise. So sure, affecting a country's trade, health and resources does seem like a pretty big deal.

So, my strawman really wasn't much of a strawman. What percentage of deaths and sicknesses come from this? How much has this decreased fishing production? How much less piracy would occur w/out this from occur? Considering the high crime that exists in Somalia, and that piracy has been around in history, it isn't hard to believe that piracy would still occur no matter what. Why can't Somalians switch over to agriculture?

I don't know enough about Somalia and I don't want to spend the time doing an in-depth analysis. It's some combination of institutions, culture, biology, and geography.

Okay, so by your own admission you have no idea what their biggest problems are and yet you automatically think the State would solve those problems...?

Not all there problems, and depends on the state, as stated earlier.

There are institutions that states provide though. Rule of law, protection of private property, enforcement of contracts, banking system, and public infrastructure (ex: roads). A state may or may not provide these institutions. However, providing these institutions will create more prosperity, all things being equal.

Oh no. You didn't. Did you really just say THE ROADS are a good reason to have the State? *facepalm* Yes, roads: a technological marvel so complex that only government agents could create them...

The technology isn't difficult. However, ensuring their proper allocation is another issue. Roads have high fixed costs but low variable costs as well. This creates what is known as a natural monopoly, which is really inefficient.

Also, the multiple ownership of a transportation system, when you have to go from point "A" to "B" and travel through tolls is massively inefficient for kind of a complex reason.

Lecture can be found here:

http://mruniversity.com...

It's called the double marginalization problem.

Furthermore, there's no empirical evidence showing that the private sector can provide roads better than the public sector. Are we to expect that everywhere around the world that people adopted public roads over private roads just by coincident?

I see that you haven't explained why only a state could provide those things.

State can provide them more efficiently. I've stated the "disputer of last resort". I've stated that aggression will occur w/out the state, and as a result poor property rights. You also need a form of consistency in enforcement of contracts and regulations. I suppose this can occur naturally, but there are incentives to go against the consistency and this would become incredibly problematic. There's the prisoners dilemna problem, and free-rider problem.

On the contrary, Somalia's residents reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, consisting of civil law, religious law and customary law - just as they have in other anarchist societies throughout history. Also central banking systems are not only morally questionable (to say the least) but also incredibly problematic.

Yea, and they sucked.

Also, your argument falls short considering Somalia had a state before 1991 - as do all other African nations - and yet most are still third world countries. So no, sorry, the state does not magically make things better. The state can just as it can and often does make it worse. But again being "better" does not justify the aggression, force and coercion that sustain the State.

Didn't state the state makes things magically better. Like I said, culture, biology, and institutions all interact and enforce one another, and create an environment that's good or bad. Things don't occur in a vacuum, which include good state formation, which is a process and the state is a gradient and a concept difficult to define. The "failed state index" provides a good reference for the level that a state exists (especially useful a state within a state).

I support good government, which is just as valid as a position as I support no government.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 7:13:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 7:05:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The point about the pirates is great. It backs up my hypothesis of "Anarcho-Piratism". The idea that there's actually a demand for supposedly statist things such as taxation and regulation and that, in absence of a government, people will still try to organize efforts for such things. The Somalia pirates are my idea in action. Funny enough, I didn't actually think of them when I coined the term.

What's the fundamental distinction between your hypothesis of "Anarcho-Piratism" and good old fashioned mob rule?

Also, you're so goddamn edgy it hurts.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 7:14:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 3:36:02 PM, Danielle wrote:

NK might be better off with or without a state. But even if NK was better off WITH a state, that is not an argument in favor of statism. And likewise even if NK was better off WITHOUT a state, that alone would not be a good argument for anarchy. The fact still remains that using force, coercion and aggression to maintain control over a populace is still immoral even if it yields "better" results. Noting the success of territories without a state is just used as an example to prove that societies can exist and even thrive without the state being necessary, since some seem to believe that the state is a "necessary" evil.

I don't know what this means.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 7:22:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 7:14:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/13/2013 3:36:02 PM, Danielle wrote:

NK might be better off with or without a state. But even if NK was better off WITH a state, that is not an argument in favor of statism. And likewise even if NK was better off WITHOUT a state, that alone would not be a good argument for anarchy. The fact still remains that using force, coercion and aggression to maintain control over a populace is still immoral even if it yields "better" results. Noting the success of territories without a state is just used as an example to prove that societies can exist and even thrive without the state being necessary, since some seem to believe that the state is a "necessary" evil.

I don't know what this means.

Quite obviously.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 7:24:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 7:13:20 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/13/2013 7:05:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The point about the pirates is great. It backs up my hypothesis of "Anarcho-Piratism". The idea that there's actually a demand for supposedly statist things such as taxation and regulation and that, in absence of a government, people will still try to organize efforts for such things. The Somalia pirates are my idea in action. Funny enough, I didn't actually think of them when I coined the term.

What's the fundamental distinction between your hypothesis of "Anarcho-Piratism" and good old fashioned mob rule?

Also, you're so goddamn edgy it hurts.

Well, if you want to be completely general, there's no difference between it, mod rule, or government, either. They are all manifestations of the same thing, only on different levels of organization. But that basically is the point behind the idea. There's no such thing as Anarchy, when we're not taking the word too literally.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 7:27:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 7:24:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/13/2013 7:13:20 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/13/2013 7:05:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The point about the pirates is great. It backs up my hypothesis of "Anarcho-Piratism". The idea that there's actually a demand for supposedly statist things such as taxation and regulation and that, in absence of a government, people will still try to organize efforts for such things. The Somalia pirates are my idea in action. Funny enough, I didn't actually think of them when I coined the term.

What's the fundamental distinction between your hypothesis of "Anarcho-Piratism" and good old fashioned mob rule?

Also, you're so goddamn edgy it hurts.

Well, if you want to be completely general, there's no difference between it, mod rule, or government, either. They are all manifestations of the same thing, only on different levels of organization. But that basically is the point behind the idea. There's no such thing as Anarchy, when we're not taking the word too literally.

I'd like to be a little more specific than "completely general."
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 7:30:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A Republic results in the least amount of concentrated power. Power is dispersed with:

- separate branches of government
- checks and balances
- representatives accountable to constituents
- representatives bound by Constitution
- government power divided into state, county, and local jurisdictions
- executive, legislative, and judicial action cannot rest in the hands of a single interest
- a 2nd Amendment to eliminate monopoly of force by government
- the ballot box, the jury box, the cartridge box

Any system will crumble when the forces of the masses demand to be enslaved. It is not the fault of our Constitutional Republic that the masses scream for chains. No system, not even Anarchy can stop a mass movement to enslave themselves.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 7:42:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 3:36:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
NK might be better off with or without a state. But even if NK was better off WITH a state, that is not an argument in favor of statism. And likewise even if NK was better off WITHOUT a state, that alone would not be a good argument for anarchy. The fact still remains that using force, coercion and aggression to maintain control over a populace is still immoral even if it yields "better" results.

tl;dr: Sure, that silly "redistribution" thing might be good for, I don't know, feeding starving people, but FYIGM.

Noting the success of territories without a state is just used as an example to prove that societies can exist and even thrive without the state being necessary, since some seem to believe that the state is a "necessary" evil.

tl;dr: It's been done periodically throughout history on very small scales under socially stratified conditions, therefore we need anarchism now.

One can infer from this position that you believe this. Since you listed this as "what's really happening", one can infer that you think its the majority of Somali's problem. In fact saying that it's the "majority problem" is actually giving you too much credit, since saying "the majority problem" puts less weight on the issue than "what's really happening'.

Can't grasp what this is supposed to say.

Okay, let's go back. I did say that people automatically point to the lack of State as an explanation for poor conditions in Somalia.

Clearly that's complete BS, as that fails to explain the horrible conditions in Somalia before the government collapsed. More importantly, I asked you to explain what the "State" would do to improve conditions in Somalia that the people alone could not do. This is the utmost important part of my rebuttal; I eagerly await your response.

tl;dr: It's metaphysically possible that a population could organize itself perfectly justly and efficiently, therefore let's give it a shot.

I see that you haven't explained why only a state could provide those things. On the contrary, Somalia's residents reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, consisting of civil law, religious law and customary law - just as they have in other anarchist societies throughout history. Also central banking systems are not only morally questionable (to say the least) but also incredibly problematic.

tl;dr: Heil Rothbard even though the specific customs and laws laid down by the African tribesmen presumably contradict his pseudo-Randian "natural rights" and are therefore heretical!

Also, your argument falls short considering Somalia had a state before 1991 - as do all other African nations - and yet most are still third world countries. So no, sorry, the state does not magically make things better. The state can just as it can and often does make it worse.

Ah, yes, the state *might* make things worse (especially when it happens to be an communist state in a country riddled with conflict and corruption to begin with), so of course let's dispense with the concept and let everyone do what they wanna do.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 7:49:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 3:36:02 PM, Danielle wrote:
"Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services, and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet."

- Joseph A. Schumpeter. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and Bros., 1942. p. 198.

Why, I can do this, too: "The state in and by itself is the ethical whole, the actualisation of freedom; and it is an absolute end of reason that freedom should be actual. The state is mind on earth and consciously realising itself there. In nature, on the other hand, mind actualises itself only as its own other, as mind asleep. Only when it is present in consciousness, when it knows itself as a really existent object, is it the state. In considering freedom, the starting-point must be not individuality, the single self-consciousness, but only the essence of self-consciousness; for whether man knows it or not, this essence is externally realised as a self-subsistent power in which single individuals are only moments. The march of God in the world, that is what the state is. The basis of the state is the power of reason actualising itself as will. In considering the Idea of the state, we must not have our eyes on particular states or on particular institutions. Instead we must consider the Idea, this actual God, by itself. On some principle or other, any state may be shown to be bad, this or that defect may be found in it; and yet, at any rate if one of the mature states of our epoch is in question, it has in it the moments essential to the existence of the state. But since it is easier to find defects than to understand the affirmative, we may readily fall into the mistake of looking at isolated aspects of the state and so forgetting its inward organic life. The state is no ideal work of art; it stands on earth and so in the sphere of caprice, chance, and error, and bad behaviour may disfigure it in many respects. But the ugliest of men, or a criminal, or an invalid, or a cripple, is still always a living man. The affirmative, life, subsists despite his defects, and it is this affirmative factor which is our theme here."

- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Philosophy of Right. Third Part: Ethical Life
iii. The State

I also don't understand how moving fictitious values around gives you a claim to physical things?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 7:49:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 7:42:49 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 6/13/2013 3:36:02 PM, Danielle wrote:

I see that you haven't explained why only a state could provide those things. On the contrary, Somalia's residents reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, consisting of civil law, religious law and customary law - just as they have in other anarchist societies throughout history. Also central banking systems are not only morally questionable (to say the least) but also incredibly problematic.

tl;dr: Heil Rothbard even though the specific customs and laws laid down by the African tribesmen presumably contradict his pseudo-Randian "natural rights" and are therefore heretical!

Lol@ presuming that Danielle is a Rothbardian. I can only assume she'll be insulted if she reads yer response.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.