Pages: [1] 2 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: 70 Somalis killed in battles between rival protection agencies (Read 2832 times)
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
maverickthree
|
Note once again the involvement of radical muslims who once again cannot get along with
their neighbors/fellow countrymen. And no significant Israeli or American presence in Somalia I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Evil men rule when good men do nothing.
Those with the best information are most likely to succeed.
Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
----Barry Goldwater
|
|
|
|
thegotoguy
|
In fairness, let's put this into perspective. 1) Somalia is a country that most Americans couldn't even find on a map. Therefore, we are susceptible to any sort of spin that the media wants to put on the story. 2) When Americans hear "Africa", we're conditioned to think "poverty", "bushmen", and "warlords". 3) The media uses an image like this one in the story to drive home the point:  4) We're talking about 70 people here. I know it sounds cruel, but I would venture to guess that 70 people are killed in American cities due to gang violence, random killings, etc. in almost any given 2-3 day period. I don't have the stats, but that's probably a fair guesstimate. We never hear about that in the news because we're so immune to it that it doesn't make headlines anymore. 5) None of us live in or have been to Somalia. I'm not ready to characterize any country as Anarcho-capitalism without having visited the place. Human nature being what it is, I'm guessing that it's more of a tribal society where the local governments or tribal elders have a lot of power and influence over the population. I would say that for an AnCap society to be fairly tested, a bunch of people who understand and believe in the ideology would have to move to a place and create the society from the ground up (through contracts, mutual defense agreements, etc). You can't just take a whole country full of people with differing ideologies, disband the national government, and call it Anarcho-capitalist. Just my humble opinion(s)  Chris |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kalnik
|
He's right. You can't take a bunch of radical fundamentalists and mention "protection agencies" and call it an anarchocapitalist society. Anarchocapitalism would be at its fullest swing if you had people that understood it.
Lurk moar.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
Lurk moar.
What does this mean? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
Kalnik
|
Lurk moar=lurk more=look around more=read more.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Icarus
|
Anarchocapitalism would be at its fullest swing if you had people that understood it. Anarchocapitalism only can work when the vast majority sympathizes with the ideas behind it. Minarchism works irregardless of political persuasion so long as constitutional law holds sway over unrestrained democracy. In a lawless society, the strongest rule through violence. In a constitutional minarchy, the use of aggressive violence is all but eliminated. Anarchocapitalism will only work if the strongest sacrifice the opportunity for power and conform to libertarian principles voluntarily. In a constitutional minarchy the interests of the strongest are best served by their conforming with the law. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least." --Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
Kalnik
|
Anarchocapitalism only can work when the vast majority sympathizes with the ideas behind it. Minarchism works irregardless of political persuasion so long as constitutional law holds sway over unrestrained democracy.
In a lawless society, the strongest rule through violence. In a constitutional minarchy, the use of aggressive violence is all but eliminated. Anarchocapitalism will only work if the strongest sacrifice the opportunity for power and conform to libertarian principles voluntarily. In a constitutional minarchy the interests of the strongest are best served by their conforming with the law. In Anarchocapitalism, there is no rule of the strongest. The "power" essentially is in the people's hands. If some individual or group was intent on using violence, armed citizens would be the big thing standing in their way. In a "lawless" society, there are no restrictions for the right for people to defend themselves. If I was living totally free, and I was threatened by people who want to try to establish power, I would for sure have more than enough people on my side to stop them. Who is going to want power to move in on a society that practices full liberty? I could almost guarantee that I would have a significant portion more of people on my side, rather than those who would support any sort of power hungry threat. In Anarchocapitalism, people would be happy with the way they live, so with Anarchocapitalism, there is automatically a vast majority that would sympathize with it. A voluntary society is the whole point. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with not having a system. You can believe what you want. You don't have to volunteer. Just make sure you don't infringe on other people's inherent rights. If you try to, more people would be for defending their own rights, rather than to enforce your belief on all others. This is all assuming if one existed. Of course the people in power, won't want to give up power. But we still outnumber them, the citizens outnumber the government. The really need, besides power, is to be informed on liberty. You need to get the idea of "laws" out of your head. "Laws" are only opinions backed with force. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 18, 2006, 10:46:39 pm by Kalnik »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Icarus
|
I just think that without "opinions backed with force" concerning the extent of individual liberties and what is and isn't a violation of one's rights, there will be as many understandings of justice as people. Without a final arbiter, those having different and incompatible understandings of justice will resort to violence. This would be a problem even assuming as you assert that most people would in principle stand up against aggressors in unity.
Some form of law is going to exist in any society. I am of the opinion that I should not be struck across the face by Joe. If Joe slaps me, I will back my opinion with force. The question is, will each individual choose his/her own laws, or will a system of laws be imposed on everyone that approaches a just application of individual rights. Even a relatively crude resemblance of justice, such as the original state of the U.S., is better than no justice system. It lets Joe know I expect to not be slapped, and that I expect him to respect my property. In return, Joe is assured I will afford him the same courtesy.
Without such a system, Joe doesn't know what I consider to be his rights. I may not believe in property, for all he knows, and he might worry that I'll take his property. If Joe believes this, he will take my property. If he trusts me, he risks being taken advantage of. This may result in a tendency to assume the worst of others, which could lead to a tendency to ignore the rights others. If nobody is respecting my rights, why should I respect theirs?
A minarchy would assure me that my rights are being respected and let me know what rights others expect me to respect.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least." --Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
Lurk moar=lurk more=look around more=read more.
Heh, heh. Okay then. I used to be an anarcho-capitalist, long ago, then realized it didn't fit the evidence. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
Jarek
|
Right, and how many people have died in Iraq because of a "limited" constitutional government?
The facts speak clearly to what governments do: they grow. And as they grow, their ability and desire to violate rights grows. Once you admit the idea that a government has a right to coerce other innocent people (via taxation or prevention of competition in protective services), what keeps it "limited"? I just can't figure out how rights-based minarchism is supposed to be coherent. And yes, I used to be a minarchist myself, but then I realized that I just couldn't make sense of it at the deepest level.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Icarus
|
I just can't figure out how rights-based minarchism is supposed to be coherent. I admit, I can't answer that either. For a short time I was an anarcho-capitalist, but I just don't think it is practical. Minarchism fails to provide total consistency. I can't say why someone should be forced to pay any taxes or follow a likely flawed system of justice except that it is the best of many evils in light of human tendencies. I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. ---Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience" But I think it is possible to somehow create a government that will remain small over time, and in practice, I believe such a system will ultimately result in more liberty than anarchy, at least until men are prepared for it (anarchy). Yes, in creating a limited government there are some explicit deprivations of liberty (eg. taxes, monopoly on use of force), and in creating an anarcho-capitalist society, it having no explicit rules, there are no explicit deprivations of liberty, but I think anarchy implies the free rule of force, which ultimately will greatly outway the inconveniences of a formal limited government. Perhaps anarchy will arise when we figure out how to limit and shrink our government, and it shrinks to nothing but an implicit set of understandings in social interactions.  Â But I think that until the initiation of force becomes unthinkable, government (tiny government) is a necessary evil, a pre-emptive strike against force, if you will. (Yeah, I know, initiating force to stop the initiation of force is not consistent or ideal, but as I[tr][/tr] said, I think it is necessary.)Â But we certainly should limit the initiation of force to the minimal necessary to maintain justice. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least." --Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
Icarus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least." --Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
Right, and how many people have died in Iraq because of a "limited" constitutional government?
The facts speak clearly to what governments do: they grow. And as they grow, their ability and desire to violate rights grows. Once you admit the idea that a government has a right to coerce other innocent people (via taxation or prevention of competition in protective services), what keeps it "limited"? I just can't figure out how rights-based minarchism is supposed to be coherent. And yes, I used to be a minarchist myself, but then I realized that I just couldn't make sense of it at the deepest level.
Historically, anarchies have grown into minarchies - or more accurately, federated tribal systems - which have then grown into full-blown activist states. This pattern is probably inevitable; there's no system of government (or non-government) impervious to "drift." If people were inherently good and peaceful, then a peaceful anarchy might be stable, but apparently that isn't the case. But what this consideration points to is the fact that cultural values and "social capital" matter, perhaps more than whether the society is organized as a minimal or ultraminimal state or some variety of anarchy. If you can change people's values in a libertarian, tolerant, rational direction, then both anarchy and minarchy would be more stable and peaceful than otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
lasse
|
This is what I've always wondered about - how do anarchists expect their state to stay an anarchy? Someone will always abuse the absence of government to take control, as in Somalia. The only way I can see is if you had an entity which hindered the actual creation of a government, but then you'd have a bizarre form of dictatorship, not anarchism.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
(not that lasse, the other lasse)
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil - Isaiah 5:20
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
