why is anarchy failing in somalia?

[trey4sports]

this is not to criticize Anarchy, but im curious as to why the Anarchy in Somolia has led to the "most dangerous state in the world" ?

i know there are some anarchists here and im curious on their take.

whether its external forces, internal or whatever the cause may be, Anarchy seems to have failed to create a prosperous nation in Somolia

[Theocrat]

this is not to criticize Anarchy, but im curious as to why the Anarchy in Somolia has led to the "most dangerous state in the world" ?

i know there are some anarchists here and im curious on their take.

whether its external forces, internal or whatever the cause may be, Anarchy seems to have failed to create a prosperous nation in Somolia

The answer to your question is found within the question itself. Anarchy inevitably fails anywhere because it undermines the most fundamental truth about human beings--their inherent sinful natures, which makes them unable to govern themselves perfectly and righteously on their own accords.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

the African people are bogged down by tribal religion and meddling from foreigners. Look at how the Kenyans are behaving towards Obama; they honestly think that politicians are demigods who can do literally anything. They don't have the cultural DNA to foster a sense of individuality, so of course anarchy isn't going to work.

[nickcoons]

this is not to criticize Anarchy, but im curious as to why the Anarchy in Somolia has led to the "most dangerous state in the world" ?

i know there are some anarchists here and im curious on their take.

whether its external forces, internal or whatever the cause may be, Anarchy seems to have failed to create a prosperous nation in Somolia

I think the more appropriate question is "Why do people think that anarchy is failing in Somalia when it seems an analysis of the country shows the opposite?"

http://mises.org/story/2066

Most of what we've heard of Somalia is from the early 90s when the government first collapsed, and the remnants of those times. The real problem was not the lack of government, but the possibility of a government being imposed from neighboring Ethiopia or even the United States.

To keep it in perspective, stateless Somalia today should be compared not with first-world countries like the US and the UK, but with Somalia as it was with government, because the transition is relative. With government, Somalia was far worse off than it is today, and it has made strides in the right direction in direct proportion to how much we've left it alone. Imposing a government there is no different than what we're trying to do in Iraq. Clearly, that doesn't work.

[Pericles]

Because the "anarchists" here aren't really anarchists. They do believe in other citizens having rights that can not be taken away, having some laws and seeing contracts enforced. The "anarchists" here beileve that such things can happen without some involuntary enforcement mechanism. If I hosed you in a business deal, why would I ever agree to some form of arbitration? How would a decision that I did not accept be enforced?

What you see in Somalia is close to true anarchy - the strong prey upon the weak and without consequence to themselves.

[Theocrat]

because the "anarchists" here aren't really anarchists. They do believe in other citizens having rights that can not be taken away, having some laws and seeing contracts enforced. The "anarchists" here beileve that such things can happen without some involuntary enforcement mechanism. If i hosed you in a business deal, why would i ever agree to some form of arbitration? How would a decision that i did not accept be enforced?

What you see in somalia is close to true anarchy - the strong prey upon the weak and without consequence to themselves.

qft

[heavenlyboy34]

The answer to your question is found within the question itself. Anarchy inevitably fails anywhere because it undermines the most fundamental truth about human beings--their inherent sinful natures, which makes them unable to govern themselves perfectly and righteously on their own accords.

QFBS. :rolleyes::p

[gls]

The answer to your question is found within the question itself. Anarchy inevitably fails anywhere because it undermines the most fundamental truth about human beings--their inherent sinful natures, which makes them unable to govern themselves perfectly and righteously on their own accords.

Hmm...if an"inherent sinful nature" among humanity makes individuals unfit to govern themselves, who exactly is doing this governing? Have we found angels among men to rule over us? Frankly, the sanctimonious nature of this post makes me sick.

[heavenlyboy34]

Hmm...if an"inherent sinful nature" among humanity makes individuals unfit to govern themselves, who exactly is doing this governing? Have we found angels among men to rule over us? Frankly, the sanctimonious nature of this post makes me sick.

+1 I doubt they've read a significant amount of anarcho-capitalist literature either. :rolleyes:

[nickcoons]

hmm...if an"inherent sinful nature" among humanity makes individuals unfit to govern themselves, who exactly is doing this governing? Have we found angels among men to rule over us? Frankly, the sanctimonious nature of this post makes me sick.

qft! :D

[The_Orlonater]

the African people are bogged down by tribal religion and meddling from foreigners. Look at how the Kenyans are behaving towards Obama; they honestly think that politicians are demigods who can do literally anything. They don't have the cultural DNA to foster a sense of individuality, so of course anarchy isn't going to work.

Cultural DNA?

Are you an avid poster on Stormfront?
Are you a National Anarchist?

[Danke]

If I hosed you in a business deal, why would I ever agree to some form of arbitration? How would a decision that I did not accept be enforced?


You mean in a business deal, I couldn't have all parties put up collateral, say in a third party escrow account, as insurance against non-compliance of said contractual terms?

How would it be enforced? Take your chances in trying to get your property back if you don't meet the terms of the contract. And vice versa. If the parties don't trust the third party arbiter, then they could agree to other terms, or non at all. No deal. Who thinks they have the upper hand? Whether it is based on might or future reputations in business dealings? That would dictate terms of contract, or if any were to come about in the first place.

Stake you deal on reputation, much like the rating system on ebay. Don't like the terms, go elsewhere, others will fill the void. Deals will be done.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Cultural DNA?

Are you an avid poster on Stormfront?
Are you a National Anarchist?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHc0zLJsABw&feature=related
one minute in

cultural, not racial

[The_Orlonater]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTPMggDow8&feature=related

cultural, not racial

So all African culture is bad?

I bet Africa would be doing a lot better if they weren't taught to be beggars by the West; most of Africa isn't anarchist.

Now I agree that some prominent non-ethnic culture breeds stupidity. I though you were getting into race, so hence here we are.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

So all African culture is bad?

I bet Africa would be doing a lot better if they weren't taught to be beggars by the West; most of Africa isn't anarchist.that's part of my point. We can't expect them to embrace freedom any more than the welfare-guzzling babyfactories here at home, simply because they haven't been taught any differently

[Theocrat]

Hmm...if an"inherent sinful nature" among humanity makes individuals unfit to govern themselves, who exactly is doing this governing? Have we found angels among men to rule over us? Frankly, the sanctimonious nature of this post makes me sick.

Well, that's why men need to be born again by God's Spirit before they can serve in public offices. The preconditions for the success of any government is found in its society's emphasis on religion and morality. Hear what some of our Founders had to say about this:

John Adams
"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."

John Qunicy Adams
"The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws."

"There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy."

Samuel Adams
"[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."

Fisher Ames
"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."

Charles Carroll
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Oliver Ellsworth
"[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion."

Benjamin Franklin
"[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."

Thomas Jefferson
"Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death."

"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind."

"I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers."

Richard Henry Lee
"It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people."

James McHenry
"[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience."

Jedediah Morse
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

William Penn
"[I]t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's."

Benjamin Rush
"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."

"We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism."

"By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. 'The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' [Matthew 1:18]"

"Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful."

Joseph Story
"Indeed, the right of a society or government to [participate] in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state and indispensable to the administrations of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion—the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them."

George Washington
"While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support."

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

"[T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people."

Daniel Webster
"[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity."

Noah Webster
"The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts."

James Wilson
"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both."

Robert Winthrop
"Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet."

So, we see that the inherent goodness or moral independency of man without religious (Christian) accountability and his role in government is a foreign and erroneous concept, at least in the ideas of the great minds who formed our early republic.

[Andrew-Austin]

this is not to criticize Anarchy, but im curious as to why the Anarchy in Somolia has led to the "most dangerous state in the world" ?

i know there are some anarchists here and im curious on their take.

whether its external forces, internal or whatever the cause may be, Anarchy seems to have failed to create a prosperous nation in Somolia

Most anarcho-capitalists do not contend that anarchy will work out to some comfortable level 100% of the time, any time any where.

But they do seem to contend that the state (an anti-social monopolizing agent) will just make things worse, that the state would amplify a societies immorality / cultural weaknesses.

Conditions in America are certainly better than they are in Somalia in some aspects, but that is not because of the state, but in spite of the state.

I remember reading something really insightful on this subject matter about a week ago, but of course my memory sucks and I can't remember the title of the article or .pdf file... X_x

[mport1]

+1 I doubt they've read a significant amount of anarcho-capitalist literature either. :rolleyes:

It would be hard to and disagree with anarchy. I know I used to think anarchy was dumb until I actually spent the time to do a significant amount of reasearch on it.

[heavenlyboy34]

[quote]"The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.""The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws."[\quote]

So now you want Mosaic law? Christ interpreted the laws of Moses differently than the Jews did, you know. Make up your mind, are you wanting Christian or Mosaic Jewish law? There is a difference. You seem to want it any which way that suits your state of mind at the moment.

You also quoted a bunch of people who disagreed with each other on many fundamental issues. :rolleyes:

[angelatc]

this is not to criticize Anarchy, but im curious as to why the Anarchy in Somolia has led to the "most dangerous state in the world" ?

i know there are some anarchists here and im curious on their take.

whether its external forces, internal or whatever the cause may be, Anarchy seems to have failed to create a prosperous nation in Somolia

Llast time I checked their economy was doing ok. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html


And I don't think it's actually an anarchy. More like warlordism.

[Mesogen]

The answer to your question is found within the question itself. Anarchy inevitably fails anywhere because it undermines the most fundamental truth about human beings--their inherent sinful natures, which makes them unable to govern themselves perfectly and righteously on their own accords.

That's right. That's why God Almighty gave us Romans 13.

Obey the powers that be for they are ministers of God.

[Pericles]

You mean in a business deal, I couldn't have all parties put up collateral, say in a third party escrow account, as insurance against non-compliance of said contractual terms?

How would it be enforced? Take your chances in trying to get your property back if you don't meet the terms of the contract. And vice versa. If the parties don't trust the third party arbiter, then they could agree to other terms, or non at all. No deal. Who thinks they have the upper hand? Whether it is based on might or future reputations in business dealings? That would dictate terms of contract, or if any were to come about in the first place.

Stake you deal on reputation, much like the rating system on ebay. Don't like the terms, go elsewhere, others will fill the void. Deals will be done.

In doing so, you greatly increase the transaction costs of every contract. Imagine real estate with money tied up in escrow because somebody got a mortgage for 30 years. That would really cut into the profit of a company in the real estate business. The reason there is a legal system and government is that it lowers transaction costs by providing an enforcement mechanism that is less costly than do it yourself justice. Cases are not about non performances as much as disagreement as to what constitutes adequate performance of a contract - this is an inefficient use of capital rather than have a legal system.

If we can agree that murder should be punished, is the victim's family supposed to pay for the investigation and trial and punishment? Fine the convicted person to pay for the costs?

[Defining Obscene]

I guess I should convert, lest I be a sinful, incapable beast...

[Theocrat]

[quote]"The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.""The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws."[\quote]

So now you want Mosaic law? Christ interpreted the laws of Moses differently than the Jews did, you know. Make up your mind, are you wanting Christian or Mosaic Jewish law? There is a difference. You seem to want it any which way that suits your state of mind at the moment.

You also quoted a bunch of people who disagreed with each other on many fundamental issues. :rolleyes:

You do err. You're the one making a distinction between the law revealed by Moses and the law expounded upon by Jesus. There is no conflict between the two, for the Scriptures record,

"And He said unto them, 'These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me.' Then opened He their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures." (Luke 22:44, 45)

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:27)

"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My words?" (John 5:47)

There is no dichotomy between what Moses wrote concerning the law, and Christ's fulfillment of that law. You need to do some Biblical exegesis before you make false accusations of God's word.

[Andrew-Austin]

That's right. That's why God Almighty gave us Romans 13.

Obey the powers that be for they are ministers of God.

Constantine was the thirteenth apostle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya4Bi4-5joA), - God was whispering in his ear (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_LExYYdLE0)!

[nickcoons]

And I don't think it's actually an anarchy. More like warlordism.

Warlords exist mainly as a method repelling the continuous threat of others (like the US, Ethiopia, and Kenya) imposing a government on them.

[heavenlyboy34]

[quote=heavenlyboy34;1862406]

You do err. You're the one making a distinction between the law revealed by Moses and the law expounded upon by Jesus. There is no conflict between the two, for the Scriptures record,

"And He said unto them, 'These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me.' Then opened He their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures." (Luke 22:44, 45)

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:27)

"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My words?" (John 5:47)

There is no dichotomy between what Moses wrote concerning the law, and Christ's fulfillment of that law. You need to do some Biblical exegesis before you make false accusations of God's word.


http://isv.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.htm
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them"

1“You have heard that it was said to those who lived long ago, ‘You must not murder,’[j] (http://isv.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.html#_ftn10) and ‘Whoever murders will be subject to punishment.’[k] (http://isv.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.html#_ftn11) 22But I say to you, anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause[l] (http://isv.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.html#_ftn12) will be subject to punishment. And whoever says to his brother ‘Raka!’[m] (http://isv.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.html#_ftn13) will be subject to the Council.[n] (http://isv.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.html#_ftn14) And whoever says ‘You fool!’ will be subject to hell[o] (http://isv.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.html#_ftn15) fire.

27“You have heard that it was said, ‘You must not commit adultery.’[r] (http://isv.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.html#_ftn18) 28But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29So if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your body parts than to have your whole body thrown into hell.[s] (http://isv.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.html#_ftn19) 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away from you. It is better for you to lose one of your body parts than to have your whole body go into hell.”[t] (http://isv.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.html#_ftn20)

31“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce.’[u] (http://isv.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.html#_ftn21) 32But I say to you, any man who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”


33“Again, you have heard that it was said to those who lived long ago, ‘You must not swear an oath falsely,’ but ‘You must fulfill your oaths to the Lord.’[v] (http://isv.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.html#_ftn22) 34But I tell you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, because it is God's throne, 35nor by the earth, because it is his footstool, nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the Great King. 36Nor should you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37Instead, let your message be ‘Yes’ for ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ for ‘No.’ Anything more than that comes from the evil one.”

No, Christ didn't totally destroy Mosaic law, but he clarified it. As you can see, I don't err. I like him (Yeshua) better than Moses, myself. :) And you?


You need to do some Biblical exegesis before you make false accusations of God's word.
As do you.

[Mesogen]

Sorry. This thread was about Somalia.

I'll leave now.

[nickcoons]

In doing so, you greatly increase the transaction costs of every contract. Imagine real estate with money tied up in escrow because somebody got a mortgage for 30 years.

Why put money into escrow to cover a real-estate transaction? The real-estate itself is the collateral.


If we can agree that murder should be punished, ... Fine the convicted person to pay for the costs?

Yes, because the criminal is the one that has incurred the debt, and the victim is owed reparations. That's where the concept of work prisons (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap16.html) comes from. Individuals in society should not be taxed (stolen from) in order to prosecute criminals, because this just creates more criminals (the one doing the taxing).

Murder is obviously a special case, because there is no amount of reparations in any political system that will bring back the dead.

[klamath]

It is working exactly the way anarchy will work. Anarchy is that perfect state that can never be sustained like the state of absolute zero.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why put money into escrow to cover a real-estate transaction? The real-estate itself is the collateral.



Yes, because the criminal is the one that has incurred the debt, and the victim is owed reparations. That's where the concept of work prisons (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap16.html) comes from. Individuals in society should not be taxed (stolen from) in order to prosecute criminals, because this just creates more criminals (the one doing the taxing).

Murder is obviously a special case, because there is no amount of reparations in any political system that will bring back the dead.

QFT. :D Thanks for the nice post, Nick.

[Defining Obscene]

The "anarchy" is failing in the sense that people didn't expect communism to compete with capitalism, unless we're talking about the Chinese hybrid strain. If the whole world was communist, communism would probably be successful because there is no safe haven for people who want to actually have more than they do. The people in Somalia are still operating on the general ideology of the surrounding states, and of course the "hey, thats my stick" and "hey, thats my yard", because if they didn't, someone else would.

[angelatc]

Warlords exist mainly as a method repelling the continuous threat of others (like the US, Ethiopia, and Kenya) imposing a government on them.

Nah, they started in- fighting as soon as they toppled the dictator. It was the military vs the tycoons with hired guns. When the Muslims showed up, it turned into a 3-way battle.

[Brassmouth]

Well, that's why men need to be born again by God's Spirit before they can serve in public offices. The preconditions for the success of any government is found in its society's emphasis on religion and morality. Hear what some of our Founders had to say about this:

John Adams
"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."

John Qunicy Adams
"The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws."

"There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy."

Samuel Adams
"[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."

Fisher Ames
"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."

Charles Carroll
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Oliver Ellsworth
"[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion."

Benjamin Franklin
"[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."

Thomas Jefferson
"Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death."

"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind."

"I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers."

Richard Henry Lee
"It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people."

James McHenry
"[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience."

Jedediah Morse
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

William Penn
"[I]t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's."

Benjamin Rush
"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."

"We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism."

"By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. 'The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' [Matthew 1:18]"

"Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful."

Joseph Story
"Indeed, the right of a society or government to [participate] in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state and indispensable to the administrations of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion—the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them."

George Washington
"While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support."

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

"[T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people."

Daniel Webster
"[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity."

Noah Webster
"The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts."

James Wilson
"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both."

Robert Winthrop
"Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet."

So, we see that the inherent goodness or moral independency of man without religious (Christian) accountability and his role in government is a foreign and erroneous concept, at least in the ideas of the great minds who formed our early republic.

:rolleyes:

Um. Since when is regurgitating quotes considered a valid argument?

And, as an aside, why can't you participate in a discussion without tainting it with religious nonsense?

[Conza88]

SERIOUSLY;


If *Walmart runs a school - would you expect the students be taught the truth about it?

If the State runs a school - would you expect the students to be taught the truth about it?

* = Easy use for socialists to understand. Obviously a private educational institution - it's market is EDUCATION, i.e truth. Their ability to meet the market, governs their prosperity. :)

Anyway, the point IS...

Why are you listening to the FOURTH eSTATE - the media establishment. They fcked Ron Paul and most certainly they are going to report NEGATIVELY on a place that has No state... Right? lol.. :D

How is it going to go down, if a stateless society = looks good, in anyway, shape or form...

Umm.. especially when there is a WORLD GOVERNMENT / STATE being set up... :)

Noo, you can't have that! ;)

[Truth Warrior]

Why is "archy" failing in the USA? :D Probably only just because there's still just not enough central planning AND too much freedom. ;)






"Chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. Chaos always defeats order because it is better organized." ~ Terry Pratchett

[pcosmar]

A couple random thoughts.
And I am posting without reading every post in the thread, but based on the title. I have scanned through and caught a couple arguments and points, but I think they miss the point.

I am not an anarchist, but concede that they have a valid position, I just don't think it will work given human nature as I have known it.

Back to the thread title,

why is anarchy failing in somalia?

First, I don't think anyone there chose "anarchy" as their system of choice.
Second, I don't think it is "anarchy" as much as Chaos, with rival factions fighting to gain control.

I guess even though I am not an advocate for Anarchy, I do not believe that Chaos = Anarchy or vice versa.

[Truth Warrior]

The Real World Order Is Chaotic (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer185.html)
Much as it bothers the god-kings.

[bojo68]

Hmm...if an"inherent sinful nature" among humanity makes individuals unfit to govern themselves, who exactly is doing this governing? Have we found angels among men to rule over us? Frankly, the sanctimonious nature of this post makes me sick.

Theocrat comes up with some AMAZING loads of crap...:)

[Pericles]

Why put money into escrow to cover a real-estate transaction? The real-estate itself is the collateral.



Yes, because the criminal is the one that has incurred the debt, and the victim is owed reparations. That's where the concept of work prisons (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap16.html) comes from. Individuals in society should not be taxed (stolen from) in order to prosecute criminals, because this just creates more criminals (the one doing the taxing).

Murder is obviously a special case, because there is no amount of reparations in any political system that will bring back the dead.

OK, we agree that crime should be dealt with, but just calling murder a special case does little good for the victim, victim's relatives, and the criminal class. Who enforces justice? Hire bounty hunters? Who pays? The victim's family? Failing to penalize unjustified violence encourages more violence, which brings us back to Somalia. Why engage in a transaction when I can steal what I want?

Re: real estate example - there are other transactions that need to be accounted for - inspection, insurance, repair work. Is replacing the state with the escrow business a real solution? If I refuse to accept arbitration what happens?

Without an efficient mechanism, deals that should get done, don't. Even the idea of escrow implies some set of rules agreed to by all involved - which again begs the question of who enforces the rules.

[nickcoons]

OK, we agree that crime should be dealt with, but just calling murder a special case does little good for the victim, victim's relatives, and the criminal class.

My argument wasn't that murder was a special case. That was just an aside to indicate that there is no way to pay suitable reparations to a murder victim. Justice is about making the victim whole, and in most crimes (as defined as a violation of one's rights), reparations are possible. They are not definitively possible for murder, because the victim cannot be repaid or made whole again.


Who enforces justice? Hire bounty hunters? Who pays? The victim's family?

The criminal pays, of course. I already answered this question.


Failing to penalize unjustified violence encourages more violence, which brings us back to Somalia. Why engage in a transaction when I can steal what I want?

Please read the Mises article I linked to in my first post of this thread. It's not all-comprehensive, but it does a fairly good job of answering the questions that you have by explaining how a voluntary system of order is established in the absence of a state. I would also recommend reading a little about the Icelandic Free State and how their society functioned.


Without an efficient mechanism, deals that should get done, don't. Even the idea of escrow implies some set of rules agreed to by all involved - which again begs the question of who enforces the rules.

The short answer is that rules are followed in a stateless society because people quickly learn that dealing with each other on a voluntary non-coercive basis is in their best interest. People will tend to work with those that keep their word and have integrity, and tend to not have dealings with those that use force.

Most of the transactions in our daily lives today, like purchasing groceries at the store, buying fuel for our vehicles, paying our bills, or whatever, happen peacefully not because there is the threat of government force, but because we realize that this is the path of least resistance. Even in a stateless society, what would happen to you if you walked into a store, took some items, and walked out without paying (assuming you weren't able to do this without being caught, which is a possibility even with a state)? Do you think you'd be welcome at that store? Do you think that maybe if you made a practice of this you'd find that all the stores in your neighborhood would prevent you from entering, making it difficult to acquire the items that you need? Sure, you could show up with a gun and force you way in, but then what about next time? Won't they have guns and be prepared for you?

Clearly it's easier and in your own best interest to voluntarily agree to the terms. Most people make rational choices about what's in their own self-interest most of the time, and that decision is usually to agree to engage in voluntary transactions. There will always be some minority that will try to use force to get their way, and this will always be the case whether or not government exists. But with the existence of government, the lure of state force entices a disproportionate number of people to seek force as their method of engaging with others.

So this is really what the freedom movement is all about; educating others that engaging with their neighbors on a voluntary basis is the most prosperous method for all. A government that mirrors the sentiment of the people will form around them, whatever that sentiment may be.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The answer to your question is found within the question itself. Anarchy inevitably fails anywhere because it undermines the most fundamental truth about human beings--their inherent sinful natures, which makes them unable to govern themselves perfectly and righteously on their own accords.

The operations of "positive" governments are unnatural processes when juxtaposed to the natural functioning of the primitive caste systems that existed beforehand.

While Plato fell far short of the Glory of Christ, the philosopher did establish the esoteric idea of the fallen natural appetite and how mankind needed to work against its sinful urge to feed itself thoughtlessly.

Primitive caste system -- a society is a primitive, natural one when a master class rules over a slave one.
Positive government -- a society is a modern, unnatural one when government attempts against its will to provide a degree of contentment for every one of its citizens.

The seeds for this unnatural "positive" government had already been established in ancient Greece during the time of the Zenith prior to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

While Jesus could touch an individual if they were part of His Jewish family, He could only preach to the nations of the Gentile dogs. The old testament deals with the primitive caste system of Christ's family while the new testament deals with how His Church relates to the modern nation state of the Gentile. As His Jewish family is saved by the law, the Gentile needed to be saved by His preaching.

Christ's purpose with the Gospel of His Church is to clear a direct path for His lowest rated slave -- the prostitute. The only hope for an enslaved prostitute is that they stand and walk away from the cruel world. Because of free will, he or she has to have the faith to leave the darkness which so horribly enslaves them.

The Christian is a dog in comparison. While the Apostle Paul had the ability to be the greatest man ever to live short of Christ Himself, God made him learn from Ananais -- a person who the Apostle Paul considered an idiot in comparison to himself.

So, as the world educates, the Church transforms its members into that of necessary lowly dogs to serve as a sanctuary for His lowest rated slaves.

[hypnagogue]

It is to laugh. There is no society and there will never be a society of human beings which can function together in any sort of peaceful anarchy. The only real form of anarchy is the wild and violent anarchy seen in Somalia.

[Truth Warrior]

It is to laugh. There is no society and there will never be a society of human beings which can function together in any sort of peaceful anarchy. The only real form of anarchy is the wild and violent anarchy seen in Somalia. Isn't that true for "archy" too, when ya really stop and think about it? Whoop-de-doo, there's a ruler in D.C.. :p:rolleyes:

[yoshimaroka]

I didn't read through the thread so I'm just going to post this:

Somalia has been improving for the past 15 years without a government. Looking its history with colonialism and previous governments, it is better off.

It's one of the last places on earth that imperial forces like the UN or the USA do not have a firm grip over… or at least some kind of entrenched influence. As we've been seeing on all the news, the U.N. and USA really do want that piece of the pie.

[yoshimaroka]

It is to laugh. There is no society and there will never be a society of human beings which can function together in any sort of peaceful anarchy. The only real form of anarchy is the wild and violent anarchy seen in Somalia.

Wild and violence are byproduct of states(opposite of anarchy).

In the 20th century political leaders have caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.

Just look at what the USA has caused in Iraq.

[heavenlyboy34]

Isn't that true for "archy" too, when ya really stop and think about it? Whoop-de-doo, there's a ruler in D.C.. :p:rolleyes:

Not just a ruler, either-a MESSIAH! ;):p

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Constantine was the thirteenth apostle

That was actually a fairly good series in that it didn't show the troops of the 4th and 5th Centuries accoutred in Principate gear, but in actual Late Roman stuff. I especially liked the episode with Alaric, Honorious and the Goth sacking of Rome in 410 AD. If only the retards in Hollywood could be educated by the BBC's costuming department we could actually have an authentic looking Arthurian movie/series.

[Truth Warrior]

Not just a ruler, either-a MESSIAH! ;):p Nah, I'm talking about the current one. When the time comes, I'll still be saying it about him too. :D

[Feenix566]

Anarchism never works. Government does have a legitimate purpose to serve: enforcing individual rights. Societies prosper to the extent to which the government fulfills this responsibility, and they fail to the extent to which the government fails. In a place where no government exists, of course there will be no enforcement of rights and so of course the society will fail. Likewise, in places where the government is willfully ignorant of individual rights and purposely violates them, such as in any socialist state, the society will similarily fail. A society can only prosper when the government enforces rights. Any action taken by the government that does not pursue this purpose will necessarily violate it and be counterproductive.

[Pericles]

Anarchism never works. Government does have a legitimate purpose to serve: enforcing individual rights. Societies prosper to the extent to which the government fulfills this responsibility, and they fail to the extent to which the government fails. In a place where no government exists, of course there will be no enforcement of rights and so of course the society will fail. Likewise, in places where the government is willfully ignorant of individual rights and purposely violates them, such as in any socialist state, the society will similarily fail. A society can only prosper when the government enforces rights. Any action taken by the government that does not pursue this purpose will necessarily violate it and be counterproductive.

+1

Great program on the BBC several years back - Triumph of the West. Looking at world history from 1000 to 2000 AD, the question was why did the western civilization move from last in the world to becoming the dominant world culture.

Conclusion was 3 reasons (A) the concept of individual rights, both political and property, (B) unlimited scientific inquiry not subject to cultural or religious influence, and (C) a governmental legal system that enforced (A) and (B).

Take one of those 3 things away, and civilization falters.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

But why should the state have a monopoly in enforcing those things? This is exactly what got us to this point, the belief that one subset of society knows best for all others.

[heavenlyboy34]

Nah, I'm talking about the current one. When the time comes, I'll still be saying it about him too. :D

OIC. I'll look forward to when the time comes, then. :)

[mediahasyou]

Many like to use anarchy synonymously with war. Or as a synonym of chaos.

Somalia's government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_Federal_Government

Theres more governments in Somalia than that one. And as stated before, these governments are warlords.

Warlords not much different than the warlord: USA.

[Andrew-Austin]

That was actually a fairly good series in that it didn't show the troops of the 4th and 5th Centuries accoutred in Principate gear, but in actual Late Roman stuff. I especially liked the episode with Alaric, Honorious and the Goth sacking of Rome in 410 AD. If only the retards in Hollywood could be educated by the BBC's costuming department we could actually have an authentic looking Arthurian movie/series.

Yeah I liked how Alaric "the barbarian" was actually far less barbaric than the Roman government. The guy just wanted his land back, and was going to spare Rome even after it butchered his people in the streets.

[Truth Warrior]

Many like to use anarchy synonymously with war. Or as a synonym of chaos.

Somalia's government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_Federal_Government

Theres more governments in Somalia than that one. And as stated before, these governments are warlords.

Warlords not much different than the warlord: USA. Except here we have them at Federal, state, county and local levels simultaneously. :p

[heavenlyboy34]

Except here we have them at Federal, state, county and local levels simultaneously. :p

lol! So true. :(:p

[Pericles]

But why should the state have a monopoly in enforcing those things? This is exactly what got us to this point, the belief that one subset of society knows best for all others.

What got us to this point was not having government, but the failure of the citizens to limit government to its proper functions.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[Truth Warrior]

What got us to this point was not having government, but the failure of the citizens to limit government to its proper functions.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Reason # 473 that voting is still just a sheer waste of time, effort and energy. ;)

[RonPaulMania]

A few points that should be brought up, first is that everything seeks order and government. Somalia, under the state of anarchy, will have "lords". We all have powers to varying degrees, and insofar as that exists there is a hierarchy of abilities from intellectual, physical, and the like. Those powers will be centralized as history shows. Anarchy never lasts for that reason and will either erupt into bloodless war or into a civilized society with laws and a government.

Sorry, that's history and the history of mankind shows that Theocrat is right insofar as man is intrinsically disordered from the good, and his will leads him to error against the good that he knows. Who here is going to tell me they knew what was right and did it every time?

That's the role of government, we know the truth and don't live up to it. Anarchy fails in justice and retribution. Coons answer was not sufficient and has major flaws as he himself states, but does not acknowledge. For example if murder has no restitution do you let murderers go? Who does the protection of society from such people? Who runs the prisons?

Who judges the intention of the act? A man kills another, but was it self-defense, a mistake in judgment, in anger out of another injustice, an act of just war, or out of jealousy or malice?

Man is corrupt, and government is full of corrupt men, but laws are made for the objective good that we know but don't do. The more man runs from the law the more we need others to enforce those laws. There weren't police at every corner 800 years ago, nor did they need it as man back then conformed to objective good and such needs weren't necessary. Men were more responsible about their own actions and did not sue over their own mistakes like spilling coffee on themselves, or sue over mistakes that did not cause catastrophic harm.

As morality goes, so does less liberty. As one poster asserted the founders disagreed on many issues, but they never disagreed on morality as the basis for a good society. As a matter of fact no great leader has. Every civilization which needed the least government needed greater emphasis on morality. Whether or not you want to believe it, that was only true when those nations were Christian as the basis for historical fact.

Look at 13th century Europe, not perfect, but certainly not what we have today. St. Francis of Assisi overthrew serfdom as incompatible with liberty, there were not police everywhere, man could own property without being thrown off the land for not paying taxes, and there was no usury, no corporations that controlled everything, and the kings of the time were far more compatible with freedom than any king today with courts that were generally fair, and people generally happy. It wasn't utopia, but no comparison today. Iceland is a great example of this, and notice how they lacked that tranquility until they were Christian and retained morality through the land.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

St. Francis of Assisi overthrew serfdom as incompatible with liberty

That increasingly became reality because of firearms, the weapons the peasants used to wipe out heavily armored noble warriors. We have modern serfdom because we're afraid to assert our liberty with the barrel of a gun whereas the goverment excercises no such restraint.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

What got us to this point was not having government, but the failure of the citizens to limit government to its proper functions.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."Some believe the proper role of government is to be relegated mainly to criminal justice, national military, and coining money. Others want roads on top of that. Still others want it involved in education, healthcare, and food.

Monopoly is a beast that cannot be restrained. Once it's secured a foothold in one area, it's going to lustfully eye up the next thing.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Man is corrupt, and government is full of corrupt men, but laws are made for the objective good that we know but don't do. The more man runs from the law the more we need others to enforce those laws. There weren't police at every corner 800 years ago, nor did they need it as man back then conformed to objective good and such needs weren't necessary. Men were more responsible about their own actions and did not sue over their own mistakes like spilling coffee on themselves, or sue over mistakes that did not cause catastrophic harm. Garbage. There is no greater indicator of the lustful and hungry eye of government than in this self-righteous nannying.

Laws come about because of people wanting control, period. Turning over every stone looking for acts of immorality doesn't help anyone, it only CREATES CRIMINALS by the mislabeling of acts as being crimes. This, in turn, empowers the judicial-prison-police complex.

[RonPaulMania]

Garbage. There is no greater indicator of the lustful and hungry eye of government than in this self-righteous nannying.

Laws come about because of people wanting control, period. Turning over every stone looking for acts of immorality doesn't help anyone, it only CREATES CRIMINALS by the mislabeling of acts as being crimes. This, in turn, empowers the judicial-prison-police complex.

My recommendation is to examine history. Your opinion is not of much use unless backed up by something other than your own views of the world. People always want control, that much is true, but the nanny state and police state are because of immorality. If you turn the eastern history you will find that true as well. Most of China was without police, and the same with India. As countries have experienced a breakout of immorality so too come the police.

If you think the gov't just makes cops because it's fun you are mistaken. The gov't would rather hoard that money it makes for greater military and more power. Study history and you'll see that the gov't never wanted to actively control the people if they didn't need to, and it was solely a passive function of taxation of needed conscription, but work on conquest and expand their lands with war.

History's leaders knew if you could destroy morality you would have a nanny state, and it's desirable in many ways as the evolution of politics has emerged. It was discovered you could tax people, keep them poor, and control them if they were immoral. A just and moral society were only good only insofar as they could be used for conscription, but not the nanny state. It's what we did, the USSR, and a host of others.

You might find it interesting that one Greek king used to dress as a beggar and listen to the town's music. He could tell by their music if they were moral and just and if they needed guidance on going back to the right track. His land was well at peace because he was so judicious.

All immoral societies fail from too much corruption (you can't escape it to some level) and that comes from an immoral society. All great thinkers, leaders and ethicists knew and understood this and taught it. You should too.

[RonPaulMania]

One more thing, show me one anarchic state that has existed in peace and tranquility. I'll be happy with one example.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

One more thing, show me one anarchic state that has existed in peace and tranquility. I'll be happy with one example.Iceland, pre-Christianity. Back then, women had *gasp* rights.

As for your polemic against immoral society...spare me. Immorality need not ever be proactively enforced because it is inherent, natural, and universal. If you abolish the government monopoly on law, then you've successfully made it 100% illegal to commit the only true crime and form of immorality: harming another human being. Doing harm to another will never be tolerated as a simple fact of the social aspect of being human.

What you're proposing is none other than Marxism; nannying everyone into doing the right thing.:rolleyes: That is what doesn't work, and is only counterintuitive because the hunger of increasing governance is unquenchable.

So once again, if Christians here expect me to be civil towards their beliefs than you're all going to have to put your money where your mouths are and stop feeding the beast. Stop mirroring liberal marxists with moral finger-wagging. This started because of you, and it ends with you. I have a feeling that if it ever does, by some miracle, end, it will be in spite of you. :rolleyes:

[RonPaulMania]

Iceland, pre-Christianity. Back then, women had *gasp* rights.

What you are saying is that Iceland, before years demarcated as BC, were an anarchist state living in tranquility? Or are you talking about the Iceland who converted and embraced Christianity and lived in harmony? That Iceland was not an anarchist state by the way. Give me the years this Iceland existed I would love to know.

Let's pretend you are right. These women who had "rights"... who protected those rights, who guaranteed their execution against tyranny or do you really think everyone in Iceland were saints especially because society as you said is inherently immoral and universal? You are contradicting your principles of what a right is if it cannot be enforced.


As for your polemic against immoral society...spare me. Immorality need not ever be proactively enforced because it is inherent, natural, and universal. If you abolish the government monopoly on law, then you've successfully made it 100% illegal to commit the only true crime and form of immorality: harming another human being. Doing harm to another will never be tolerated as a simple fact of the social aspect of being human.

So have no government and law will be enforced on it's own as it won't be tolerated? Did I understand you correctly? If I did there has never been a civilization that ever existed like that which has succeeded. It also fails to judge intention of act, a principle in ethics.


What you're proposing is none other than Marxism; nannying everyone into doing the right thing.:rolleyes: That is what doesn't work, and is only counterintuitive because the hunger of increasing governance is unquenchable.

I never proposed that. I propose giving the best means to get rid of the nanny state which essentially is to make mankind responsible for all it's actions without motherment to back up it's mistakes: no gov't adoption agencies, no entitlements, no taxation on citizens, and yes I do believe in legislation to protect innocence in both media and in the public realm. The government that conforms closest to God conforms closest to harmony.


So once again, if Christians here expect me to be civil towards their beliefs than you're all going to have to put your money where your mouths are and stop feeding the beast. Stop mirroring liberal marxists with moral finger-wagging. This started because of you, and it ends with you. I have a feeling that if it ever does, by some miracle, end, it will be in spite of you.

So we should be mean and nasty to each other because if I don't agree with you therefore you won't be civil? You are making my case on why anarchy does not work. A nation without civility, common courtesy is doomed for destruction and without realizing it you are the unwilling tool used by nannyism to create more of it. What you think you are fighting against you are creating more of.

Maybe you believe in free-speech insofar as you believe it exists as long as others don't use their rights, and if they do you will be rude and nasty.

I've never been a Marxist. For you to use labels and caustic remarks show the shallowness of your argument. Marx was a materialistic atheist. Maybe I should throw in you're Hitler too if labels have no meaning? Be more respectful if you want to make your case as I think of messages boards are only as good as the people who present their case for the betterment of each other.

[Theocrat]

I've not met an anarchist on RPF who lives in Somalia or is planning to move to Somalia. Hmmm. I wonder why that is...

[sdczen]

What you are saying is that Iceland, before years demarcated as BC, were an anarchist state living in tranquility? Or are you talking about the Iceland who converted and embraced Christianity and lived in harmony? That Iceland was not an anarchist state by the way. Give me the years this Iceland existed I would love to know.

Let's pretend you are right. These women who had "rights"... who protected those rights, who guaranteed their execution against tyranny or do you really think everyone in Iceland were saints especially because society as you said is inherently immoral and universal? You are contradicting your principles of what a right is if it cannot be enforced.



So have no government and law will be enforced on it's own as it won't be tolerated? Did I understand you correctly? If I did there has never been a civilization that ever existed like that which has succeeded. It also fails to judge intention of act, a principle in ethics.



I never proposed that. I propose giving the best means to get rid of the nanny state which essentially is to make mankind responsible for all it's actions without motherment to back up it's mistakes: no gov't adoption agencies, no entitlements, no taxation on citizens, and yes I do believe in legislation to protect innocence in both media and in the public realm. The government that conforms closest to God conforms closest to harmony.



So we should be mean and nasty to each other because if I don't agree with you therefore you won't be civil? You are making my case on why anarchy does not work. A nation without civility, common courtesy is doomed for destruction and without realizing it you are the unwilling tool used by nannyism to create more of it. What you think you are fighting against you are creating more of.

Maybe you believe in free-speech insofar as you believe it exists as long as others don't use their rights, and if they do you will be rude and nasty.

I've never been a Marxist. For you to use labels and caustic remarks show the shallowness of your argument. Marx was a materialistic atheist. Maybe I should throw in you're Hitler too if labels have no meaning? Be more respectful if you want to make your case as I think of messages boards are only as good as the people who present their case for the betterment of each other.

If I may jump in here. There is often a misunderstood aspect of anarchy in practice. This being the thought that without laws the people will wander aimlessly, clubbing baby seals and encroaching on others rights/property.

This is simply not true once all things (cause & effect) are considered. There is an inherent problem with most laws in that they all lead to more laws, which lead to even more laws. This will go on forever as history has been so illuminating.

Laws are nothing more than a stepping stone to more laws. These are generally created by people who wish to garner some sort of control of people/places/things. These very people that bring these laws into reality will be replace or usurped by a whole new set of people that have their own wishes of control that will be carried out by the creation of new laws.

I would wager that a strong majority of the people do not live their daily lives thinking that they cannot steal their neighbors car because they will go to jail. The law is not the deterrent. The deterrent is that most people would not think about stealing someones car in the first place. My point is, people sit around thinking about all the things they would like to do, but can't because it's against the law. Chances are, every single day you, me and everyone else have broken some sort of law, somewhere. Even if it's not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.

The good thing about laws is that they can protect someones property rights, the bad thing about laws is that they can take them away too.

[sdczen]

I would fear a true democracy more than I would fear anarchy.

[Theocrat]

If I may jump in here. There is often a misunderstood aspect of anarchy in practice. This being the thought that without laws the people will wander aimlessly, clubbing baby seals and encroaching on others rights/property.

This is simply not true once all things (cause & effect) are considered. There is an inherent problem with most laws in that they all lead to more laws, which lead to even more laws. This will go on forever as history has been so illuminating.

Laws are nothing more than a stepping stone to more laws. These are generally created by people who wish to garner some sort of control of people/places/things. These very people that bring these laws into reality will be replace or usurped by a whole new set of people that have their own wishes of control that will be carried out by the creation of new laws.

I would wager that a strong majority of the people do not live their daily lives thinking that they cannot steal their neighbors car because they will go to jail. The law is not the deterrent. The deterrent is that most people would not think about stealing someones car in the first place. My point is, people sit around thinking about all the things they would like to do, but can't because it's against the law. Chances are, every single day you, me and everyone else have broken some sort of law, somewhere. Even if it's not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.

The good thing about laws is that they can protect someones property rights, the bad thing about laws is that they can take them away too.

Well, I think you are missing a major philosophical issue, and that is you assume the inherent moral goodness of mankind. If mankind possessed this inate moral goodness, then I would agree with you that we wouldn't need to have any laws. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case, and history continues to vindicate that point.

I agree with you that we have too many laws on the books, but the solution to a society that has too many laws is not the eradication of all laws (as is the fundamentals of true anarchy). There's another way to look at the problem. We have to ensure that we maximize just laws and minimize unjust laws. However, if doing this will not solve our dilemma because men and women have to solve the problem of their immoral natures.

You say that without laws, people would not consider stealing cars, but I find that to be quite naive, to be frank with you. We have laws today which protect people's property against theft, yet we still lock our cars, our houses, and our storage units because we know that the law can only minimize thefts. Now imagine a society which had no laws to protect from theft. Thefts would skyrocket. Yet, somehow anarchists think that eliminating most, if not all, laws will solve problems, such as theft, of any society to ensure protection of property rights. That is a pipedream.

Listen, if you think men are naturally predisposed to being moral creatures and fit to structure an anarchal society resulting in peace and prosperity, then do me a favor. Take out your keys and jingle them. Let their chime remind you that not only will people continue to do evil things if given the opportunity to so, but also let it remind you that you don't even believe that yourself. Otherwise, why have keys in the first place?

[sdczen]

Well, I think you are missing a major philosophical issue, and that is you assume the inherent moral goodness of mankind. If mankind possessed this inate moral goodness, then I would agree with you that we wouldn't need to have any laws. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case, and history continues to vindicate that point.

I agree with you that we have too many laws on the books, but the solution to a society that has too many laws is not the eradication of all laws (as is the fundamentals of true anarchy). There's another way to look at the problem. We have to ensure that we maximize just laws and minimize unjust laws. However, if doing this will not solve our dilemma because men and women have to solve the problem of their immoral natures.

You say that without laws, people would not consider stealing cars, but I find that to be quite naive, to be frank with you. We have laws today which protect people's property against theft, yet we still lock our cars, our houses, and our storage units because we know that the law can only minimize thefts. Now imagine a society which had no laws to protect from theft. Thefts would skyrocket. Yet, somehow anarchists think that eliminating most, if not all, laws will solve problems, such as theft, of any society to ensure protection of property rights. That is a pipedream.

Listen, if you think men are naturally predisposed to being moral creatures and fit to structure an anarchal society resulting in peace and prosperity, then do me a favor. Take out your keys and jingle them. Let their chime remind you that not only will people continue to do evil things if given the opportunity to so, but also let it remind you that you don't even believe that yourself. Otherwise, why have keys in the first place?

I do believe in a certain amount of moral goodness as you call it. However, I also believe that we have become products of our environment. Many years of unjust laws and corrupt politicians/people have brought us to where we are today. "They" have their hooks in everything that we do/say/eat/etc...

There are two forms of control that are well established today. The first being structural control (laws) and the second is perceived control (philosophy, religion, political parties etc...). In both instances they are designed to control others under the guise of safety/protection/prosperity/salvation. The glaring problem here is that these were created by man, interpreted by man and enforced by man. The real question is: Which one of these men are correct? The answer, none of them. They can only be right in the realm of their own perception, whereas their neighbors perceive the opposite.

The real question is: Who gets to decide what a "Just law" is? (realizing of course that people creating laws today never believe they are creating "unjust laws".)

More and more I am believing that most people want to be left alone. To be allowed self determination, without the invisible hand of any governing power. I also believe that the vast majority of these people will not encroach on the rights of others to do the same.

[RonPaulMania]

I do believe in a certain amount of moral goodness as you call it. However, I also believe that we have become products of our environment. Many years of unjust laws and corrupt politicians/people have brought us to where we are today. "They" have their hooks in everything that we do/say/eat/etc...

There are two forms of control that are well established today. The first being structural control (laws) and the second is perceived control (philosophy, religion, political parties etc...). In both instances they are designed to control others under the guise of safety/protection/prosperity/salvation. The glaring problem here is that these were created by man, interpreted by man and enforced by man. The real question is: Which one of these men are correct? The answer, none of them. They can only be right in the realm of their own perception, whereas their neighbors perceive the opposite.

The real question is: Who gets to decide what a "Just law" is? (realizing of course that people creating laws today never believe they are creating "unjust laws".)

More and more I am believing that most people want to be left alone. To be allowed self determination, without the invisible hand of any governing power. I also believe that the vast majority of these people will not encroach on the rights of others to do the same.

First of all you are probably the most respectful person to discuss the issue. For that I applaud you, which is crazy considering we are asking for a just and good order to society.

Let me explain some of the flaws in your logic. Man can be reasonably good, but man is fundamentally flawed intellectually and in their will. Intellectually truth is hard to ascertain with the mind struggling to find truth. Ask 10 people what is the best government and you will get varying answers; on matters of the will think of how most people talk about other members of their family and I can guarantee it's usually bad things about each other. Because of that the absence of law cannot be possible without great injustice. You just said no man is correct in knowing the law or justice. Do you realize how incorrect that is? Before you tell me I'm wrong realize you told me no one is right in your view. That's the problem you just created.

People will steal and do vicious things to one another. I should know, I'm in the RE business and I was taken for thousands.

There is a right and wrong. It's wrong to punch children. It's wrong to kill without cause. One's environment is blind to those truths and I can judge, without prejudice, the objective act. How can I know that? Because justice is a system of determining what is objectively right in the moral order according to objective goodness based on experience, abstractions of judgment, and introspection there can be a just order. It can be summed up as "do unto others as you would have done unto you."

Justice should be determined by what is best for society. Free-speech is only good insofar as it conforms to moral truth. Lying, for example, can be criminal if it unjustly destroys your reputation and ability to make a living. If the lie was simply a mistake in fact it is not criminal and be restored through some form of restitution. We can know truth, although difficult, and we can be good with fighting against our fallen nature. The law is for man, not man for the law. The law is made to contain evil from others.

Let's go to the opposite vein, i.e. anarchy, and let's make a scenario. With the anger on this board, and every board for that matter, what if they got into a cursing war and one ended up striking one another until they other was injured to they couldn't work? How would anarchy answer that? A man shoots another person, who judges the intent of the act? Anarchy cannot answer those questions.

[RonPaulMania]

If freedom was the biggest prerogative, as some of you claim, and you believe that freedom is best described as anarchy, why not be more free in Somalia and who knows experience the open seas as a pirate? Give us some feedback of your experience. No one wants to live in such a country as screwed up as Somalia. If you really practice what you preach go and lead by example.

Otherwise the entire view that anarchy is great is nothing more than hypocrisy. Trust me, if it worked out so great it would be contagious to the rest of the world.

Right now the rest of the world wants to avoid Somalia. You should ask the starving children how the warlords are doing with the countries food and how anarchy is working out.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

It is to laugh. There is no society and there will never be a society of human beings which can function together in any sort of peaceful anarchy. The only real form of anarchy is the wild and violent anarchy seen in Somalia.

The purpose of authority is to dispense contentment, not responsibility. So, we do have anarchy today in how government doesn't concern itself with the contentment of the people, existentially speaking.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

If freedom was the biggest prerogative, as some of you claim, and you believe that freedom is best described as anarchy, why not be more free in Somalia and who knows experience the open seas as a pirate? Give us some feedback of your experience. No one wants to live in such a country as screwed up as Somalia. If you really practice what you preach go and lead by example.

Otherwise the entire view that anarchy is great is nothing more than hypocrisy. Trust me, if it worked out so great it would be contagious to the rest of the world.

Right now the rest of the world wants to avoid Somalia. You should ask the starving children how the warlords are doing with the countries food and how anarchy is working out.

Freedom is a prerequisite of contentment but secondary in importance. Liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than no liberty whatsoever.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

First of all you are probably the most respectful person to discuss the issue. For that I applaud you, which is crazy considering we are asking for a just and good order to society.

Let me explain some of the flaws in your logic. Man can be reasonably good, but man is fundamentally flawed intellectually and in their will. Intellectually truth is hard to ascertain with the mind struggling to find truth. Ask 10 people what is the best government and you will get varying answers; on matters of the will think of how most people talk about other members of their family and I can guarantee it's usually bad things about each other. Because of that the absence of law cannot be possible without great injustice. You just said no man is correct in knowing the law or justice. Do you realize how incorrect that is? Before you tell me I'm wrong realize you told me no one is right in your view. That's the problem you just created.

People will steal and do vicious things to one another. I should know, I'm in the RE business and I was taken for thousands.

There is a right and wrong. It's wrong to punch children. It's wrong to kill without cause. One's environment is blind to those truths and I can judge, without prejudice, the objective act. How can I know that? Because justice is a system of determining what is objectively right in the moral order according to objective goodness based on experience, abstractions of judgment, and introspection there can be a just order. It can be summed up as "do unto others as you would have done unto you."

Justice should be determined by what is best for society. Free-speech is only good insofar as it conforms to moral truth. Lying, for example, can be criminal if it unjustly destroys your reputation and ability to make a living. If the lie was simply a mistake in fact it is not criminal and be restored through some form of restitution. We can know truth, although difficult, and we can be good with fighting against our fallen nature. The law is for man, not man for the law. The law is made to contain evil from others.

Let's go to the opposite vein, i.e. anarchy, and let's make a scenario. With the anger on this board, and every board for that matter, what if they got into a cursing war and one ended up striking one another until they other was injured to they couldn't work? How would anarchy answer that? A man shoots another person, who judges the intent of the act? Anarchy cannot answer those questions.

But that which is self-evidently true to the extent that it is unalienably reduced to the souls of every human-being is greater than an opinion, theory, conclusion or ideal. Who cares what 10 other people think?

[cheapseats]

The answer to your question is found within the question itself. Anarchy inevitably fails anywhere because it undermines the most fundamental truth about human beings--their inherent sinful natures, which makes them unable to govern themselves perfectly and righteously on their own accords.

You are harsh on human nature, presuming that Humanity is part of God's perfect design, dontcha think?

Your harshness, labeling human nature sinful, is part of human nature.

Human nature is why anarchy will not work anywhere.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I do believe in a certain amount of moral goodness as you call it. However, I also believe that we have become products of our environment. Many years of unjust laws and corrupt politicians/people have brought us to where we are today. "They" have their hooks in everything that we do/say/eat/etc...

There are two forms of control that are well established today. The first being structural control (laws) and the second is perceived control (philosophy, religion, political parties etc...). In both instances they are designed to control others under the guise of safety/protection/prosperity/salvation. The glaring problem here is that these were created by man, interpreted by man and enforced by man. The real question is: Which one of these men are correct? The answer, none of them. They can only be right in the realm of their own perception, whereas their neighbors perceive the opposite.

The real question is: Who gets to decide what a "Just law" is? (realizing of course that people creating laws today never believe they are creating "unjust laws".)

More and more I am believing that most people want to be left alone. To be allowed self determination, without the invisible hand of any governing power. I also believe that the vast majority of these people will not encroach on the rights of others to do the same.

Immorality = the point reached when the cost of policing the police exceeds the means of society.

[cheapseats]

Immorality = the point reached when the cost of policing the police exceeds the means of society.

I disagree.

[Truth Warrior]

Immorality = the point reached when the cost of policing the police exceeds the means of society. Not to even mention the cost of policing those policing the police, etc., etc., etc. :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Well, I think you are missing a major philosophical issue, and that is you assume the inherent moral goodness of mankind. If mankind possessed this inate moral goodness, then I would agree with you that we wouldn't need to have any laws. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case, and history continues to vindicate that point.

I agree with you that we have too many laws on the books, but the solution to a society that has too many laws is not the eradication of all laws (as is the fundamentals of true anarchy). There's another way to look at the problem. We have to ensure that we maximize just laws and minimize unjust laws. However, if doing this will not solve our dilemma because men and women have to solve the problem of their immoral natures.

You say that without laws, people would not consider stealing cars, but I find that to be quite naive, to be frank with you. We have laws today which protect people's property against theft, yet we still lock our cars, our houses, and our storage units because we know that the law can only minimize thefts. Now imagine a society which had no laws to protect from theft. Thefts would skyrocket. Yet, somehow anarchists think that eliminating most, if not all, laws will solve problems, such as theft, of any society to ensure protection of property rights. That is a pipedream.

Listen, if you think men are naturally predisposed to being moral creatures and fit to structure an anarchal society resulting in peace and prosperity, then do me a favor. Take out your keys and jingle them. Let their chime remind you that not only will people continue to do evil things if given the opportunity to so, but also let it remind you that you don't even believe that yourself. Otherwise, why have keys in the first place?

Laws are defined as civil measures and legal precedents. As civil measures are necessary to increase the contentment of the people, old civil measures become legal precedents when dug up and reutilized on the grounds of long established tradition.

[heavenlyboy34]

A World Too Complex To Be Managed


by Butler Shaffer (bshaffer@swlaw.edu)
by Butler Shaffer

http://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-s-icon-l.gifhttp://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-s-text-l.gif (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer137.html#) http://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-e-icon-l.gifhttp://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-e-text-l.gif (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer137.html#) http://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-p-icon-l.gifhttp://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-p-text-l.gif (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer137.html#) http://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-mp-icon-l.gifhttp://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-mp-text-l.gif (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer137.html#)


What an immense mass of evil must result...from allowing men to assume the right of anticipating what may happen.


~ Leo Tolstoy
The cable newscaster chirped: “what is the cause of rising gasoline prices? That depends upon your point of view.” By this standard, the causal explanations offered by any nit-witted galoot achieve a credibility equal to that of the most carefully-informed student of the subject. In an age in which public opinion polls weigh more heavily than empirical and reasoned analyses in evaluating events, the communal mindset of dullards may prevail by sheer numbers.
If, according to this newscaster, my “point of view” is that sun spots are “the cause of rising gasoline prices,” I have explained the current pricing phenomenon. Because such a theory would exceed the boundaries of what even the collective clueless would tolerate, more plausible – though equally erroneous – explanations must be sought. Those looking for simplistic answers to complex problems will find greater comfort in “oil company price gouging” as the underlying reason for fifty dollar visits to neighborhood gas pumps.
One of my students – picking up on the “price gouging” theme – opined that monopolistic oil company greed was to blame for these price increases. “First of all,” I responded, “why do you characterize the petroleum industry as ‘monopolistic’? It is highly competitive. Secondly, why do you think that it took a century for ‘greedy’ oil company leaders to figure out that the demand for gasoline was so inelastic that customers would be willing to pay over $3.00 per gallon to buy it? Furthermore, have you ever asked yourself why the prices of gold and oil have consistently paralleled one another over the years? Why do you suppose this is? Has the petroleum industry also cornered the gold market?”
The eagerness of so many people to accept superficial answers to complex problems, is what keeps the political rackets in business. People are aware that they have insufficient information upon which to make predictions about intricate economic and social relationships and, presuming that the state has access to such knowledge, allow it to take on this role. What these individuals generally fail to understand is that state officials are equally unable to chart or direct the course of complex behavior.
Current society is rapidly being transformed from vertically-structured, institutionally-dominant systems into horizontally-interconnected networks. Our world is becoming increasingly decentralized, with questions arising as to the forms emerging social systems may take. The study of chaos informs us that the multifaceted, interrelated nature of complex systems render our world unpredictable. As our understanding of chaos deepens, our faith in institutional omniscience will likely be abandoned.
Our experiences with the state should make us aware of how misplaced has been our confidence in the centralized planning and direction of society. It is commonplace to speak of the “unintended consequences” of political intervention. This is just a way of acknowledging the inconstancy and unpredictable nature of complexity. Minimum wage laws, for instance, create increased unemployment, a problem to which the state responds by the enactment of unemployment compensation legislation. This program, in turn, generates the problem of welfare fraud, to which the state makes further responses. Minimum wage laws increase the costs of doing business, making firms less competitive in a world market. This leads to political pressures to increase protective tariffs and self-righteous campaigns against foreign countries whose economies are not burdened by minimum wage legislation.
In this sense, politics functions the way much of traditional medicine does: to repress troublesome symptoms with remedies that produce exponential increases in other symptoms requiring additional medications. If you look inside an elderly person’s medicine cabinet and see the many drugs that are used to suppress symptoms brought on by previous drugs, you will see a perfect parallel to the expansion of governmental “solutions” to politicogenic “problems.”
The succession of problems occasioned by state action is reflected in other areas. Americans who fail to understand the causal relationship between decades of violent American foreign policies and the attacks on the World Trade Center, will be eager to accept such simplistic explanations of 9/11 as the product of “terrorists” bent on destroying America out of “evil” or “envious” motivations. Any deeper inquiry will prove too troublesome for those challenged by complexity, and so they settle for the lies and deceptions of political authorities.
There are simply too many unidentifiable factors working on events in our lives for any of us to make accurate predictions of the future. Kierkegaard understood the problem of correlating prior learning and future conduct. “Philosophy is perfectly right,” he declared, “in saying that life must be understood backward. But then one forgets the other clause – that it must be lived forward.” The variabilities that inhere in complexity make both our efforts to understand the past and to predict the future uncertain. A penumbra of ignorance will always enshroud both the historian and the prophet.
But ignorance and fear are closely entwined and, as Thoreau and others have observed, “nothing is so much to be feared as fear.” There is probably no greater drain on our psychic energies than fear of the unknown. I see this in my students, and advise them, on their first day of classes, to learn to be comfortable with uncertainty; that an awareness of one’s ignorance is a catalyst for learning. As the Austrian economists tell us, we act in order to be better off after acting than if we hadn’t acted at all. So, too, learning occurs only when we are uncomfortable with not knowing something we would like to know.
But fear can debilitate us, making us susceptible to the importunities of those who promise to alleviate our fears if only we will give the direction of our lives over to them. In this manner are institutions born, with the state demanding the greatest authority over us, and promising release from our uncertainties.
But the state has no clearer crystal ball into the future than do you or I. To the contrary, it is more accurate to suggest that you and I are less prone to error in the management of our personal affairs, than is the state in trying to direct the lives of hundreds of millions of individuals. In addition to our separate interests, the variables confronting events in your life and mine are less numerous, and more localized, than those with which the state deals in its efforts to collectively control all of humanity. If you or I make an error in judgment, you or I suffer the consequences. When the state errs in its planning, mankind in general may suffer.
A major lesson that will likely emerge from the study of chaos is that our world is simply too complex to be centrally managed. If we are to live well in an inconstant and unpredictable society, we need all the personal autonomy and spontaneity that we can muster. Perhaps in the same way that our ancestors learned to shift their thinking from a geocentric to a heliocentric model of the universe, our children and grandchildren will discover that human society functions better when it is organized horizontally rather than vertically. In words that have become increasingly familiar to us, “nothing grows from the top down.”

[cheapseats]

I'm curious, this discussion being in General Politics and not Philosophy, does anyone present actually believe that Anarchy would be preferable to what we have now and, if so, that it will be accomplished in the next, say, hundred years, even if those who feel as you do commit the balance of their lives to the effort?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I disagree.

You may disagree with me and that is fine. Disagree with that which is self evidently true and the unalienable natural right of all human-beings and you aren't an American.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm curious, this discussion being in General Politics and not Philosophy, does anyone present actually believe that Anarchy would be preferable to what we have now and, if so, that it will be accomplished in the next, say, hundred years, even if those who feel as you do commit the balance of their lives to the effort?

We already have a sort of anarchy-only it is "managed" by the state. Individuals are theoretically allowed to do what they want. When they exercise their freedoms, they do well-till they are confronted with the state. In this situation, individuals cannot use real world information to make decisions because it is monopolized by the state (via laws, etc.). JMHO. I'm sure TW will be in to elaborate later. :)

[cheapseats]

Immorality = the point reached when the cost of policing the police exceeds the means of society.

I disagree.



Not to even mention the cost of policing those policing the police, etc., etc., etc. :D

The OUTRAGEOUS COST of all our policing and prosecuting and incarcerating, both sides of the coin/mechanism, is MANIFESTATION of immorality independent of whichever allegedly immoral acts are addressed by the cost/coin/mechanism.

[Truth Warrior]

I'm curious, this discussion being in General Politics and not Philosophy, does anyone present actually believe that Anarchy would be preferable to what we have now and, if so, that it will be accomplished in the next, say, hundred years, even if those who feel as you do commit the balance of their lives to the effort? Given the continuing and increasing growth rate in "archy" over the last hundred years, can you even begin to imagine what the end of the next hundred years will be like? :eek:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

A World Too Complex To Be Managed


by Butler Shaffer (bshaffer@swlaw.edu)
by Butler Shaffer

http://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-s-icon-l.gifhttp://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-s-text-l.gif (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer137.html#) http://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-e-icon-l.gifhttp://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-e-text-l.gif (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer137.html#) http://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-p-icon-l.gifhttp://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-p-text-l.gif (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer137.html#) http://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-mp-icon-l.gifhttp://a449.g.akamai.net/f/449/1776/1d/button.clickability.com/img/com/000099/h-mp-text-l.gif (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer137.html#)


What an immense mass of evil must result...from allowing men to assume the right of anticipating what may happen.


~ Leo Tolstoy
The cable newscaster chirped: “what is the cause of rising gasoline prices? That depends upon your point of view.” By this standard, the causal explanations offered by any nit-witted galoot achieve a credibility equal to that of the most carefully-informed student of the subject. In an age in which public opinion polls weigh more heavily than empirical and reasoned analyses in evaluating events, the communal mindset of dullards may prevail by sheer numbers.
If, according to this newscaster, my “point of view” is that sun spots are “the cause of rising gasoline prices,” I have explained the current pricing phenomenon. Because such a theory would exceed the boundaries of what even the collective clueless would tolerate, more plausible – though equally erroneous – explanations must be sought. Those looking for simplistic answers to complex problems will find greater comfort in “oil company price gouging” as the underlying reason for fifty dollar visits to neighborhood gas pumps.
One of my students – picking up on the “price gouging” theme – opined that monopolistic oil company greed was to blame for these price increases. “First of all,” I responded, “why do you characterize the petroleum industry as ‘monopolistic’? It is highly competitive. Secondly, why do you think that it took a century for ‘greedy’ oil company leaders to figure out that the demand for gasoline was so inelastic that customers would be willing to pay over $3.00 per gallon to buy it? Furthermore, have you ever asked yourself why the prices of gold and oil have consistently paralleled one another over the years? Why do you suppose this is? Has the petroleum industry also cornered the gold market?”
The eagerness of so many people to accept superficial answers to complex problems, is what keeps the political rackets in business. People are aware that they have insufficient information upon which to make predictions about intricate economic and social relationships and, presuming that the state has access to such knowledge, allow it to take on this role. What these individuals generally fail to understand is that state officials are equally unable to chart or direct the course of complex behavior.
Current society is rapidly being transformed from vertically-structured, institutionally-dominant systems into horizontally-interconnected networks. Our world is becoming increasingly decentralized, with questions arising as to the forms emerging social systems may take. The study of chaos informs us that the multifaceted, interrelated nature of complex systems render our world unpredictable. As our understanding of chaos deepens, our faith in institutional omniscience will likely be abandoned.
Our experiences with the state should make us aware of how misplaced has been our confidence in the centralized planning and direction of society. It is commonplace to speak of the “unintended consequences” of political intervention. This is just a way of acknowledging the inconstancy and unpredictable nature of complexity. Minimum wage laws, for instance, create increased unemployment, a problem to which the state responds by the enactment of unemployment compensation legislation. This program, in turn, generates the problem of welfare fraud, to which the state makes further responses. Minimum wage laws increase the costs of doing business, making firms less competitive in a world market. This leads to political pressures to increase protective tariffs and self-righteous campaigns against foreign countries whose economies are not burdened by minimum wage legislation.
In this sense, politics functions the way much of traditional medicine does: to repress troublesome symptoms with remedies that produce exponential increases in other symptoms requiring additional medications. If you look inside an elderly person’s medicine cabinet and see the many drugs that are used to suppress symptoms brought on by previous drugs, you will see a perfect parallel to the expansion of governmental “solutions” to politicogenic “problems.”
The succession of problems occasioned by state action is reflected in other areas. Americans who fail to understand the causal relationship between decades of violent American foreign policies and the attacks on the World Trade Center, will be eager to accept such simplistic explanations of 9/11 as the product of “terrorists” bent on destroying America out of “evil” or “envious” motivations. Any deeper inquiry will prove too troublesome for those challenged by complexity, and so they settle for the lies and deceptions of political authorities.
There are simply too many unidentifiable factors working on events in our lives for any of us to make accurate predictions of the future. Kierkegaard understood the problem of correlating prior learning and future conduct. “Philosophy is perfectly right,” he declared, “in saying that life must be understood backward. But then one forgets the other clause – that it must be lived forward.” The variabilities that inhere in complexity make both our efforts to understand the past and to predict the future uncertain. A penumbra of ignorance will always enshroud both the historian and the prophet.
But ignorance and fear are closely entwined and, as Thoreau and others have observed, “nothing is so much to be feared as fear.” There is probably no greater drain on our psychic energies than fear of the unknown. I see this in my students, and advise them, on their first day of classes, to learn to be comfortable with uncertainty; that an awareness of one’s ignorance is a catalyst for learning. As the Austrian economists tell us, we act in order to be better off after acting than if we hadn’t acted at all. So, too, learning occurs only when we are uncomfortable with not knowing something we would like to know.
But fear can debilitate us, making us susceptible to the importunities of those who promise to alleviate our fears if only we will give the direction of our lives over to them. In this manner are institutions born, with the state demanding the greatest authority over us, and promising release from our uncertainties.
But the state has no clearer crystal ball into the future than do you or I. To the contrary, it is more accurate to suggest that you and I are less prone to error in the management of our personal affairs, than is the state in trying to direct the lives of hundreds of millions of individuals. In addition to our separate interests, the variables confronting events in your life and mine are less numerous, and more localized, than those with which the state deals in its efforts to collectively control all of humanity. If you or I make an error in judgment, you or I suffer the consequences. When the state errs in its planning, mankind in general may suffer.
A major lesson that will likely emerge from the study of chaos is that our world is simply too complex to be centrally managed. If we are to live well in an inconstant and unpredictable society, we need all the personal autonomy and spontaneity that we can muster. Perhaps in the same way that our ancestors learned to shift their thinking from a geocentric to a heliocentric model of the universe, our children and grandchildren will discover that human society functions better when it is organized horizontally rather than vertically. In words that have become increasingly familiar to us, “nothing grows from the top down.”


But the American system isn't complex but simple because we don't need to be manipulated. We have already inherited the solution in our divorce decree from tyranny, The Declaration of Independence and in our new marriage decree to a more perfect government, The U.S. Constitution. A self-evident truth is that which is commonly known by the conscience of every living human-being including that of the king. Any argument, theory, conclusion or legislation against such a conclusion should be considered an offense against God Almighty.

[heavenlyboy34]

Given the continuing and increasing growth rate in "archy" over the last hundred years, can you even begin to imagine what the end of the next hundred years will be like? :eek:

I shudder to think of it, sensei. :eek::(

[Truth Warrior]

The OUTRAGEOUS COST of all our policing and prosecuting and incarcerating, both sides of the coin/mechanism, is MANIFESTATION of immorality independent of whichever allegedly immoral acts are addressed by the cost/coin/mechanism.

"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators, and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class." ~ Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, The State

[cheapseats]

We already have a sort of anarchy-only it is "managed" by the state. Individuals are theoretically allowed to do what they want. When they exercise their freedoms, they do well-till they are confronted with the state. In this situation, individuals cannot use real world information to make decisions because it is monopolized by the state (via laws, etc.). JMHO. I'm sure TW will be in to elaborate later. :)

We have an elaborate, corrupt, frivolous, superficial, inept, courtly Monarchy masquerading as a democracy, a Grand Farce that permits them to collect the exorbitant taxes necessary to fund the elaborate and superficial frivolity and ineptitude, and the rampant corruption.

Eerily like the British crown overthrown less than hundred years ago.

I went to Philadelphia in September, to assure myself that my forebears really did do what I've been taught they did.

Yep.

Sure 'nuf. The buildings still stand.

Well, not Ben Franklin's house and print shop, alas . . . seems his descendants couldn't afford the upkeep and taxes, so they sold it and the new owner tore it down. Pity, eh?

But most of the pivotal structures are intact.

Including Carpenter's Hall, where the Second Continental Congress met.

I have been searching for and not finding a tidbit that I recently learned. I'm thinking that perhaps I read it there. One of the Signers, I am ashamed to say I can't remember which, went to the hall day after day, week after week, and waited . . . until a representative from each colony finally arrived.

So simple. So beautiful.

They declared OUR independence, with the legendary document that Elected Officials use to line the cages of pampered pets that have more security than their fellow Americans, and went on about their affairs.

The war wasn't for another year.

I sense that Philadelphia is key.

[heavenlyboy34]

But the American system isn't complex but simple because we don't need to be manipulated. We have already inherited the solution in our divorce decree from tyranny, The Declaration of Independence and in our new marriage decree to a more perfect government, The U.S. Constitution. A self-evident truth is that which is commonly known by the conscience of every living human-being including that of the king. Any argument, theory, conclusion or legislation against such a conclusion should be considered an offense against God Almighty.


If it's so simple, please recite every single law currently on the books in every state, city, county, and municipality-plus all the federal laws. :eek:

IMO, the "marriage decree" was the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution, though well intended by many, was hijacked by the STATIST Federalist party. :p I don't want to get into another religious argument here, but has your theory about "God Almighty" stopped any of the current violations of individual liberty? NO. Human governors, if they are allowed to exist, must be bound tightly by law. But we know that government history shows that government would rather aggrandize itself at the expense of individual liberty. (just look at the major events in the US over the last year) (again, I don't want another religious thread...just trying to deal with what you put forth)

What king or dictator cares about self evident truths? :confused: Only individuals do.

[heavenlyboy34]

We have an elaborate, corrupt, frivolous, superficial, inept, courtly Monarchy masquerading as a democracy, a Grand Farce that permits them to collect the exorbitant taxes necessary to fund the elaborate and superficial frivolity and ineptitude, and the rampant corruption.

Eerily like the British crown overthrown less than hundred years ago.


qft.

[Truth Warrior]

But the American system isn't complex but simple because we don't need to be manipulated. We have already inherited the solution in our divorce decree from tyranny, The Declaration of Independence and in our new marriage decree to a more perfect government, The U.S. Constitution. A self-evident truth is that which is commonly known by the conscience of every living human-being including that of the king. Any argument, theory, conclusion or legislation against such a conclusion should be considered an offense against God Almighty.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Truth Warrior]

I shudder to think of it, sensei. :eek::( And you'll get more of it than I will because the odds are that I will merely be long gone. ;)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

If it's so simple, please recite every single law currently on the books in every state, city, county, and municipality-plus all the federal laws. :eek:

IMO, the "marriage decree" was the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution, though well intended by many, was hijacked by the STATIST Federalist party. :p I don't want to get into another religious argument here, but has your theory about "God Almighty" stopped any of the current violations of individual liberty? NO. Human governors, if they are allowed to exist, must be bound tightly by law. But we know that government history shows that government would rather aggrandize itself at the expense of individual liberty. (just look at the major events in the US over the last year) (again, I don't want another religious thread...just trying to deal with what you put forth)

What king or dictator cares about self evident truths? :confused: Only individuals do.

The laws should be more complex and unique in each state and locality while it is supposed to be simpler on the Federal level.

We've been discussing philosophy here. Natural law. Natural laws had no theories opposing them because as conclusions they both reduced down to an undeniable degree while they were presented with an analysis which could not be misunderstood or misinterpreted.
Modern philosophy is not applicable to the philosophy our founding fathers used in creating our nation because it includes the highly questionable cognizant sciences.

[heavenlyboy34]

And you'll get more of it than I will because the odds are that I will merely be long gone. ;)

Awww, horsefeathers! :(

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

I agree. The self-evident truths and unalienable natural rights don't guarantee that America will always exist. It only guarantees that the American ideal will because tyranny cannot destroy that which is a formal conclusion. To oppose it amounts to opposing God Himself which was the reason our founding-fathers used in declaring the king not serving as a king with God's sovereign power but a tyrant. The judgement our founding fathers stood under when making this declaration was not of that of tyranny but of God Himself.

[V-rod]

Humans are born as wild animals. We are taught morality, we are not born with it.

[nickcoons]

That's the role of government, we know the truth and don't live up to it. Anarchy fails in justice and retribution. Coons answer was not sufficient and has major flaws as he himself states, but does not acknowledge. For example if murder has no restitution do you let murderers go? Who does the protection of society from such people? Who runs the prisons?

I did not state that this was a flaw, and I did acknowledge the murder question, as well as who runs prisons and pays for protection. It's all in the link to the chapter in Dr. Ruwart's book that I've posted earlier in this thread.

[heavenlyboy34]

Humans are born as wild animals. We are taught morality, we are not born with it.

+1

[nickcoons]

I agree with you that we have too many laws on the books, but the solution to a society that has too many laws is not the eradication of all laws (as is the fundamentals of true anarchy).

Anarchy is the absence of government, not the absence of laws.

[nickcoons]

If freedom was the biggest prerogative, as some of you claim, and you believe that freedom is best described as anarchy, why not be more free in Somalia and who knows experience the open seas as a pirate? Give us some feedback of your experience. No one wants to live in such a country as screwed up as Somalia. If you really practice what you preach go and lead by example.

Otherwise the entire view that anarchy is great is nothing more than hypocrisy. Trust me, if it worked out so great it would be contagious to the rest of the world.

Right now the rest of the world wants to avoid Somalia. You should ask the starving children how the warlords are doing with the countries food and how anarchy is working out.

Somalia was far more screwed up when it had government. When the government fell, it was invaded by other countries, not least of which was the United States. To the degree that it's been left alone, it is making progress in leaps and bounds.

Your example isn't based on freedom being the most important factor to an anarchist; it's based on the assertion that freedom is the only factor. Even as the most important, there are other factors that can cumulatively add up to be more important, and these are virtually infinite depending on who's being asked.

To put it another way, there are many anarchists that would probably not move to Somalia even if it was a paradise, because there are other factors that determine where one resides (i.e. proximity to family, climate, relationships, geographical landscape preferences, etc), but then it could hardly be argued that they weren't moving to Somalia because they were afraid of the conditions.

[Truth Warrior]

I agree. The self-evident truths and unalienable natural rights don't guarantee that America will always exist. It only guarantees that the American ideal will because tyranny cannot destroy that which is a formal conclusion. To oppose it amounts to opposing God Himself which was the reason our founding-fathers used in declaring the king not serving as a king with God's sovereign power but a tyrant. The judgement our founding fathers stood under when making this declaration was not of that of tyranny but of God Himself. And yet FF Hamilton preferred and sought a monarchy for G. Washington, did he not? ;) :rolleyes: :p

I don't find Romans 13 to be particularly credible, laudatory, accurate nor persuasive. :eek:

[heavenlyboy34]

And yet FF Hamilton preferred and sought a monarchy for G. Washington, did he not? ;) :rolleyes: :p

He did indeed. The bastard. :p:mad:

[RonPaulMania]

Humans are born as wild animals. We are taught morality, we are not born with it.

That's not true. I've proved it a million times before, so have a myriad of other great writers. That's like saying one must see every immoral act before we judge it so, or that one must see every material thing and be taught what it is before we judge it in the same genus.

Animals don't have introspection. They can't have bad or good days. We can because we have reason and the capacity to judge. Morals are based on the good as it relates to reality.

Morality is objective. If you don't believe it let someone steal from you and say he was born that way or raised that way, or let an employer pay you in Skittles rather than dollars. I bet you will say it's more than how you were raised because no one taught you Skittles aren't dollars, and you'll call the police and ask for objective compensation based on common mediums.

The biggest reason why anarchism doesn't work is that with your thinking I could do whatever I want and blame it on social conditioning. How could you stop me and what grounds? If you don't believe in objective good, how could you stop me from destroying your life? If anarchists believe in law without government who governs the law and determines objectively the right and the wrong and the intentionality of the act? You understand animals don't have morals precisely because there is no need to judge intentionality, but with man it's a requirement to the act. I'm sure you realize this don't you?


Good luck answering those questions.

[sailor]

this is not to criticize Anarchy, but im curious as to why the Anarchy in Somolia has led to the "most dangerous state in the world" ?

Iraq is stil more dangerous by far.

[The_Orlonater]

But why should the state have a monopoly in enforcing those things? This is exactly what got us to this point, the belief that one subset of society knows best for all others.

So you would rather have to look for your rights? How are you going to decide who's going to enforce your rights.

[sailor]

So you would rather have to look for your rights? How are you going to decide who's going to enforce your rights.

Rights are not enforced. Rights are defended.

[heavenlyboy34]

So you would rather have to look for your rights? How are you going to decide who's going to enforce your rights.

All rights belong to the individual human unless they are stolen or given to the government.

[Pericles]

Anarchy is the absence of government, not the absence of laws.

Like New Orleans after Katrina?

[nickcoons]

Like New Orleans after Katrina?

How do you draw the conclusion that New Orleans after Katrina, which had government agents running through the streets confiscating weapons, is anything like "no government"?

[fr33domfightr]

How do you draw the conclusion that New Orleans after Katrina, which had government agents running through the streets confiscating weapons, is anything like "no government"?

I think what he meant was, the place was insecure. Some of the people there acted immorally (gang members, etc.), because they could use force (with guns) against unarmed citizens. This in turn, must have prompted citizens (with guns) to highten their preparedness, or by brandishing weapons where they normally wouldn't have to.

An anarchist might ask, why would anyone *really* need a gun?

My answer is, because people don't always act in moral ways.



FF

[Pericles]

How do you draw the conclusion that New Orleans after Katrina, which had government agents running through the streets confiscating weapons, is anything like "no government"?

Most government was gone for the first 72 hours, then just like you posted in your work prisons link, security was contracted to Blackwater, and finally National Guard and active military brought in to restore some form of order - except for Balckwater, same pattern as the '92 LA riots.

What is the point in referring to your link which provides no answers to the previous questions I asked - Who pays?

OK - outsource the police to a private company who can do it cheaper - who pays? Who keeps the private company honest?

OK private courts dispense justice and the loser pays - same thing happens in civil courts today, who makes the criminal pay? Last time I checked, violent felons are people without much net worth. Who gets the money from them and how?

Laws without an enforcement mechanism are, in effect, no laws at all. The current problem is not that we have government, it is that we can't get the Constitution enforced to limit government (and laws) to their properly defined scope and function.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm going to take your question about enforcement. Since agreements between individuals and groups are based on contract and mutual consent, enforcement mechanisms would be specified in contracts-from the first court of resolution to the final arbiter of justice. This provides an incentive for private courts to be fair and just to clients.

This should answer your questions. If not, let me know. :)


Most government was gone for the first 72 hours, then just like you posted in your work prisons link, security was contracted to Blackwater, and finally National Guard and active military brought in to restore some form of order - except for Balckwater, same pattern as the '92 LA riots.

What is the point in referring to your link which provides no answers to the previous questions I asked - Who pays?

OK - outsource the police to a private company who can do it cheaper - who pays? Who keeps the private company honest?

OK private courts dispense justice and the loser pays - same thing happens in civil courts today, who makes the criminal pay? Last time I checked, violent felons are people without much net worth. Who gets the money from them and how?

Laws without an enforcement mechanism are, in effect, no laws at all. The current problem is not that we have government, it is that we can't get the Constitution enforced to limit government (and laws) to their properly defined scope and function.

[nickcoons]

What is the point in referring to your link which provides no answers to the previous questions I asked - Who pays?

I'm not sure which link you're talking about. But the link I was referring to (this one (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap16.html)) answers all of your "who pays?" questions.

[nickcoons]

I think what he meant was, the place was insecure. Some of the people there acted immorally (gang members, etc.), because they could use force (with guns) against unarmed citizens. This in turn, must have prompted citizens (with guns) to highten their preparedness, or by brandishing weapons where they normally wouldn't have to.

It was the chaos caused by natural disaster, not by anarchy, that created the environment.


An anarchist might ask, why would anyone *really* need a gun?

My answer is, because people don't always act in moral ways.

I would agree with your answer, but not with who you propose would ask the question. An anarchist wouldn't ask this question; a statist would.

[sdczen]

Many of you are missing a fundamental point. Anarchy does NOT mean mayhem, murder & pillaging. Here is the definition:

1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a Utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

Furthermore, the media has promoted this myth that anarchy is what happens when there is rioting in the streets. Take the current Greek incidents. Is there Government in Greece? Yes. Are there laws being enforced? Yes. This is more in the "Mob rule" category. Democracy in action.

Now, take New Orleans. The same situation applies here. The laws were never repealed and the government never went away. The criminal gangs were actually supported by the government confiscating firearms of property owners & citizens.

These situations are not anarchy. Don't get confused with what the media has misrepresented the definition. Remember, the media was calling RP supporters anarchists too. So, don't confuse criminal activities with anarchy.

[zadrock]

Looks like whatever government is in place in Somalia is leaving:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/10517

Oh noes! What will we do without government? :rolleyes:

Z

[The_Orlonater]

All rights belong to the individual human unless they are stolen or given to the government.

Government protects those rights. I don't want to shop around for different agencies to give me my natural rights.

[The_Orlonater]

Rights are not enforced. Rights are defended.

Enforcing them would be like defending them.

[nickcoons]

Government protects those rights.

Oh? Which government does that?


I don't want to shop around for different agencies to give me my natural rights.

I think some reading up on anarcho-capitalism might help here. Mises.org has all sorts of good articles, including some about Somalia specifically.

[constituent]

Many of you are missing a fundamental point. Anarchy does NOT mean mayhem, murder & pillaging. Here is the definition:

1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a Utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

Furthermore, the media has promoted this myth that anarchy is what happens when there is rioting in the streets. Take the current Greek incidents. Is there Government in Greece? Yes. Are there laws being enforced? Yes. This is more in the "Mob rule" category. Democracy in action.

Now, take New Orleans. The same situation applies here. The laws were never repealed and the government never went away. The criminal gangs were actually supported by the government confiscating firearms of property owners & citizens.

These situations are not anarchy. Don't get confused with what the media has misrepresented the definition. Remember, the media was calling RP supporters anarchists too. So, don't confuse criminal activities with anarchy.

you have to forgive some of these stooges, they get all riled up over at the daily-kos and then come over here convinced they've got some bullet-proof case with which to fight the good fight.

it's pitiful, tragic and freakin' hilarious all at the same time.

[heavenlyboy34]

Government protects those rights. I don't want to shop around for different agencies to give me my natural rights.

You already own your natural rights. You would only be shopping for the best person/agency to protect your rights against other people/organizations/governments. :)

[hypnagogue]

An unprotected or undefended right is a useless object. What use is it to the individual to believe that they have a right to life if no one in their land has any qualms about him being arbitrarily killed?

The Rule of Law is the only method by which liberty may be cultivated.

[Truth Warrior]

An unprotected or undefended right is a useless object. What use is it to the individual to believe that they have a right to life if no one in their land has any qualms about him being arbitrarily killed?

The Rule of Law is the only method by which liberty may be cultivated.

The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

[heavenlyboy34]

An unprotected or undefended right is a useless object. What use is it to the individual to believe that they have a right to life if no one in their land has any qualms about him being arbitrarily killed?

The Rule of Law is the only method by which liberty may be cultivated.

Au contraire. The free market for defense works much better. Just ask any celebrity who goes out in public-they hire bodyguards rather than wait for police to save them. How many crime victims have been saved by "rule of law"? Remeber Nicole Brown Simpson? ;)

[hypnagogue]

Debating with anarchists is almost as bad as debating with the religious.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

Thanks for posting this again. Some around here need to be reminded on a regular basis, it seems. ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

Debating with anarchists is almost as bad as debating with the religious.

I'm not an anarchist. I'm a libertarian (small l). TW is much better at anarchism than I. I'm studying, though. :)

[Truth Warrior]

I'm not an anarchist. I'm a libertarian (small l). TW is much better at anarchism than I. I'm studying, though. :) Go with "Autarchy" ala LeFevre. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

Debating with anarchists is almost as bad as debating with the religious. Right, because "archy" is working out oh so well. :p :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

right, because "archy" is working out oh so well. :p :rolleyes:

lol! :d;)

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

An unprotected or undefended right is a useless object. What use is it to the individual to believe that they have a right to life if no one in their land has any qualms about him being arbitrarily killed?

The Rule of Law is the only method by which liberty may be cultivated.When an entity is given sole authority to arbitrate a matter of rights, it also has the authority to decide what is a right, and whether or not it shall be protected

[hypnagogue]

An argument against one thing, logically, is not an argument for another. You all point out flaws with the Rule of Law. No one denies their existence. It remains true, however, that a system of Law with all it's pitfalls and dangers is still superior to the absence of Law.

When weighed rationally, the benefits when taken together with the troubles with Law still defeat the benefits when taken together with the troubles in Anarchy. I would even argue, vastly so.

[Andrew-Austin]

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf


30 page .pdf on Somalia for those genuinely interested.

Covers Somalia before and after the loss of government.

p.s. heavenlyboy, for the love of God and/or flying spaghetti monster, stop sucking off TW in every other post. We get it, you agree with every quote he manages to dig up.

[M House]

TW lost me when he told me it was pointless to vote, he was probably being sarcastic, as it obviously does something looking at all those pissed off gays in California. I can also see how Somalia might be better off without the government it had for sure. 30 friggin pages to look thru though, anybody got a quick summary of recent developments in last say 20 years.

[M House]

Okay just started reading alot of this looks familiar. If I remember we had a hand in the Ethiopian involvement there, does anybody remember what exactly were some of the details?

[Truth Warrior]

An argument against one thing, logically, is not an argument for another. You all point out flaws with the Rule of Law. No one denies their existence. It remains true, however, that a system of Law with all it's pitfalls and dangers is still superior to the absence of Law.

When weighed rationally, the benefits when taken together with the troubles with Law still defeat the benefits when taken together with the troubles in Anarchy. I would even argue, vastly so.

Any "system" crucially dependent on human reliability is inherently unreliable.

"The instinct to command others, in its primitive essence, is a carnivorous, altogether bestial and savage instinct. Under the influence of the mental development of man, it takes on a somewhat more ideal form and becomes somewhat ennobled, presenting itself as the instrument of reason and the devoted servant of that abstraction, or political fiction, which is called the public good. But in its essence it remains just as baneful, and it becomes even more so when, with the application of science, it extends its scope and intensifies the power of its action. If there is a devil in history, it is this power principle." -- Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin

[Truth Warrior]

TW lost me when he told me it was pointless to vote, he was probably being sarcastic, as it obviously does something looking at all those pissed off gays in California. I can also see how Somalia might be better off without the government it had for sure. 30 friggin pages to look thru though, anybody got a quick summary of recent developments in last say 20 years.

So I guess, "he was probably being sarcastic" is simply intended as the definitive and conclusive lame sad excuse for what now passes as a logical and reasoned negation, refutation and rebuttal argument and position, these very sorry days. :p

Nope, guess again. :rolleyes: Apologies for "losing you", perhaps this will adequately simplify and clarify matters for you.

Voting FOR freedom is like screwing FOR virginity.


"When people say 'let's do something about it,' they mean 'let's get hold of the political machinery so that we can do something to somebody else.' And that somebody is invariably you." -- Frank Chodorov

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx

[nickcoons]

30 friggin pages to look thru though, anybody got a quick summary of recent developments in last say 20 years.

I posted a link to one much earlier in this thread.

[lucius]

this is not to criticize Anarchy, but im curious as to why the Anarchy in Somolia has led to the "most dangerous state in the world" ?

i know there are some anarchists here and im curious on their take.

whether its external forces, internal or whatever the cause may be, Anarchy seems to have failed to create a prosperous nation in Somolia

It's policy agenda to destabilize and depopulate Africa.

Tarpley briefly talks about these Brzezinski planned geopolitical actions here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1862254&postcount=1

[M House]

Truth Warrior so without a quote or anything did you or did you not vote in the last election here? I mean that's something my mom does as she never votes and then she complains about the politicians later.

So about Somalia...what exactly was the deal with involvement in both Ethiopia and there?

[Truth Warrior]

Truth Warrior so without a quote or anything did you or did you not vote in the last election here? I mean that's something my mom does as she never votes and then she complains about the politicians later.

Not ANY since 1972, like the late George Carlin, for some of the very same reasons. No future plans to vote. If I can resist voting for Ron, I can resist anybody. The very LAST people entitled to complain are the voters. They picked the corrupt slimy weaselly bastards, after all. :p :rolleyes:

Say Hi and Right On, to your mom, for me. :D

So about Somalia...what exactly was the deal with involvement in both Ethiopia and there?

Beats me! Like Ron, I too am a foreign affairs "Non-interventionist". We've got much more than enough of our own SHIT to clean up, right here at home.


:(

[M House]

:(

So two people not voting does what exactly? I mean I just took the time voted for a few candidates who didn't win, and didn't feel bad about it all. Actually, felt a ton better about voting this time than when I didn't bother at all. When you don't vote you just leave it up to someone else. Sure you can make up excuses like the system is corrupt or you feel your vote won't be counted. It's just self fulfilling nobody can count a vote that hasn't been cast. I doubt you or my mom are the type who are going to run for office or revolt so that leaves your um mighty powerful apathy....

[Truth Warrior]

So two people not voting does what exactly? I mean I just took the time voted for a few candidates who didn't win, and didn't feel bad about it all. Actually, felt a ton better about voting this time than when I didn't bother at all. When you don't vote you just leave it up to someone else. Sure you can make up excuses like the system is corrupt or you feel your vote won't be counted. It's just self fulfilling nobody can count a vote that hasn't been cast. I doubt you or my mom are the type who are going to run for office or revolt so that leaves your um mighty powerful apathy.... Tell that to the other 2/3 of "We the People" that DON'T vote.

You spout the STATIST "brainwash programming" jargon very well. :p You voter folks are the MINORITY, by a WIDE margin. ;)

Politics Is a Sociopathic Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer96.html)

[yoshimaroka]

True News 18: Somalia

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI

[idiom]

The only time God every set up a country the way He wanted in the bible is recorded in the book of Judges.

It involves a hell of a lot of genocide. It also involves no central government and 'everybody doing what was right in their own eyes'.

Yeah thats not Anarchy. Somalia is also re-establishing itself on a Tribal system.

[Keller1967]

As we march towards an completely insolvent currency based on trillions of debt, a government that can spy on us at any time, constitutionalists being added to terrorist watch lists, perpetual war thanks to pre-emptive war, as well as the complete destruction of the lower and middle classes - it is both horrifying and hilarious to look at watch as sheer American arrogance nit picks over "what is wrong" with anarchy in Somalia.

[MelissaWV]

Thank goodness someone raised a thread from January 2009 from the grave. It was totally necessary.

[Keller1967]

Yes, it was, I'm glad you agree.

[ChaosControl]

Delete

[constituent]

Animals don't have introspection. They can't have bad or good days.

You've never met my shar-pei.

[torchbearer]

Delete

http://www.dmmultimedia.com/Dalek/dalek_076s.jpg

[Bucjason]

Anarchy is as big a threat to Liberty as despotism is ...and one ineviteably always leads to the other ...History has shown this.

[Keller1967]

Anarchy is as big a threat to Liberty as despotism is ...and one ineviteably always leads to the other ...History has shown this.

Life is as big a threat to liberty as despotism is...and one inevitably always leads to the other ...History has shown this.


History almost completely full of despotism, it is not difficult to pull out all sorts of ridiculous correlations.

[Bucjason]

Life is as big a threat to liberty as despotism is...and one inevitably always leads to the other ...History has shown this.


History almost completely full of despotism, it is not difficult to pull out all sorts of ridiculous correlations.

Is it really that ridiculous a correlation ??

I think your analogy has just proven the point of human nature , and the reason anarchy does not work. Anarchy is just the breeding ground of despotism . It's where despotism is free to gain it's footing, unrestrained.

The people in Somalia do not live in a state of liberty , they live in servitude to local warlords and pirates . They live in fear. This is the natural progression , next stop : despotism.

[Keller1967]

Is it really that ridiculous a correlation ??

I think your analogy has just proven the point of human nature , and the reason anarchy does not work. Anarchy is just the breeding ground of despotism . It's where despotism is free to gain it's footing, unrestrained.

The people in Somalia do not live in a state of liberty , they live in servitude to local warlords and pirates . They live in fear. This is the natural progression , next stop : despotism.

Life just does not work, life is the breeding ground for despotism. If we ended all life there would be no despotism.

Then again some might say certain things are worth any price, any amount of suffering due to resistance to despotism. I would say life (existence) and freedom are two of these things. You say anarchy does not work because it leads to despotism, you might as well say the same thing about life - life does not work because it leads to despotism.

Saying X does not work because it leads to despotism is a stupid correlation.

Government does not work, not because it leads to despotism, because it is despotism. That is how it is different from both life and anarchy, in relation to despotism.

Do not tell me about how fearful people in Somalia are as our society is on the brink of collapse.

[erowe1]

this is not to criticize Anarchy, but im curious as to why the Anarchy in Somolia has led to the "most dangerous state in the world" ?


That's a strange question.

Isn't it the case that Somalia is full of gangs robbing people and arrogating to themselves the power to rule them? And isn't "anarchy" by definition the lack of such gangs?

[MelissaWV]

In all fairness, people who've been trying to "help" Somalia by sending supplies and the like have tipped the scales quite a bit. They're mostly supplying the warlords and gangs. If the gangs had nothing to eat, nothing to trade, nothing to drink, nothing on which to survive, they wouldn't be much of a problem.

[Keller1967]

In all fairness, people who've been trying to "help" Somalia by sending supplies and the like have tipped the scales quite a bit. They're mostly supplying the warlords and gangs. If the gangs had nothing to eat, nothing to trade, nothing to drink, nothing on which to survive, they wouldn't be much of a problem.

What is this? Less interest and more sarcasm please. If you are going to be a jerk you might as well be consistent about it.

[MelissaWV]

What is this? Less interest and more sarcasm please. If you are going to be a jerk you might as well be consistent about it.

You're not making any sense. I hope you get a hug today.

[tmosley]

On the first page, there was a link to an excellent Mises article showing that life in Somalia actually isn't bad, in fact it is better than the surrounding nations, and is better than when there was a central government. Their judicial system is almost exactly the same as the one described in the mises article on free market police forces/judiciary. The only problem is that they have clans rather than insurance companies, which limits the exchange to those inside the system. You would have to pull in with your own fully developed clan in order to participate on an equal footing. Otherwise, you have to have a sponsor. If a foreigner goes to Somalia without membership in one of the clans, or sponsorship, they are an outlaw.

If someone were to make the effort to go there and establish a modern port city, and have some insurance companies that have equal footing to their clans, their economy wold explode. Their exclusion of foreigners is the only thing holding them back. They are better than most African countries as it is.

[Keller1967]

You're not making any sense. I hope you get a hug today.

Me too, thanks. :)

[ninepointfive]

You say that without laws, people would not consider stealing cars, but I find that to be quite naive, to be frank with you. We have laws today which protect people's property against theft, yet we still lock our cars, our houses, and our storage units because we know that the law can only minimize thefts. Now imagine a society which had no laws to protect from theft. Thefts would skyrocket. Yet, somehow anarchists think that eliminating most, if not all, laws will solve problems, such as theft, of any society to ensure protection of property rights. That is a pipedream.


This point you make is incorrect, and I don't consider myself an anarchist. You aren't looking past the point that a thief would need to consider the possibility of losing their own life to steal something. Defending property by force would be common and acceptable in an anarchy situation.

Right now, thieves have the law on their side in issues of perpetrating a crime. The victim of the thief can be prosecuted for simply defending themselves even when non-lethal.

[tremendoustie]

this is not to criticize Anarchy, but im curious as to why the Anarchy in Somolia has led to the "most dangerous state in the world" ?

i know there are some anarchists here and im curious on their take.

whether its external forces, internal or whatever the cause may be, Anarchy seems to have failed to create a prosperous nation in Somolia

That's why "anarchy" is an awful description for a voluntary society. The problem is aggressive violence -- and there are plenty of people in somalia trying to rule over each-other using aggressive violence. Whether these gangs call themselves "government" or not is immaterial -- the gangs are the problem.

A voluntary society requires a critical mass of people who are interested in defending themselves from violence, while respecting their neighbors' decisions, rather than ruling over others.

[tremendoustie]

The answer to your question is found within the question itself. Anarchy inevitably fails anywhere because it undermines the most fundamental truth about human beings--their inherent sinful natures, which makes them unable to govern themselves perfectly and righteously on their own accords.

Yes, that's why we need to put the most sinful people in charge, and give them the power to use aggressive violence with no consequences to themselves. I'm sure that will solve the problem :rolleyes:.

[tremendoustie]

Because the "anarchists" here aren't really anarchists. They do believe in other citizens having rights that can not be taken away, having some laws and seeing contracts enforced. The "anarchists" here beileve that such things can happen without some involuntary enforcement mechanism. If I hosed you in a business deal, why would I ever agree to some form of arbitration? How would a decision that I did not accept be enforced?

What you see in Somalia is close to true anarchy - the strong prey upon the weak and without consequence to themselves.

There's nothing wrong with involuntary enforcement of rules against harming persons or property. What's wrong is initiating aggressive violence.

Government should abide by the same rules for moral decency that we all do -- that's all I'm saying. Would it be right for you to use force to stop a thief or a murderer -- or to reclaim a victim's stolen property? Yes. Would it be right for you to obtain funding by mugging your neighbors? No.

[tremendoustie]

Well, that's why men need to be born again by God's Spirit before they can serve in public offices. The preconditions for the success of any government is found in its society's emphasis on religion and morality.

Again, if people are generally evil, why do you imagine those same people will select good men to rule over them? Don't you think evil, power hungry people are more likely to seek power? Don't you think the best liars, and most corrupt and underhanded, are most likely to obtain it?

[tremendoustie]

That's right. That's why God Almighty gave us Romans 13.

Obey the powers that be for they are ministers of God.

I think this is an incredibly simplistic interpretation. Should germans have obeyed Hitler? Was Hitler a "minister of God"? Should russians have obeyed Stalin? Should pol-pot's murderous orders be followed? Were slaves wrong to try to escape, since it was illegal? I suppose hariett tubman, rosa parks, Susan B. Anthony, MLK, Gandhi, etc, were all disobeying God?

Paul himself disobeyed authorities, as did Christ himself. Clearly he did not mean this in the way you are interpreting it.

Paul was writing to a specific church at a specific time, addressing particular problems in that church. I think taking this one letter, and using it as an excuse to ignore huge portions of scripture, as well as common sense, and to excuse blatantly immoral behavior by government, is very wrong.

[John Taylor]

"Anarchy" is failing because for any system of order to be maintained, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS must be protected. They aren't in Somalia. That's it.

[pcosmar]

"Anarchy" is failing because for any system of order to be maintained, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS must be protected. They aren't in Somalia. That's it.

Sorry, but Anarchy is NOT failing in Somalia.
It is proceeding exactly as expected.
:(

[tremendoustie]

It is working exactly the way anarchy will work. Anarchy is that perfect state that can never be sustained like the state of absolute zero.

It's the Non Aggression Principle that's good -- not simply the fact that there's no central government. Random violent gangs is no better than one big violent gang. That's why "anarchy" is such a poor term.

Perhaps a society which follows the NAP could be considered "anarchistic" in some sense -- there would be no monopolistic, coercive government, although there would be law and order. There are many ways, however, to have anarchy, which have nothing to do with the NAP. These situations are often as bad or worse than government.

I really wish people would stop using the term "anarchy" altogether -- it's incredibly misleading. Getting rid of the current central government would not make everything hunky dory -- we'd just have a struggle while the next gang tries to be the new government. People need to take a principled stand against aggressive violence -- that's the way for things to improve.

[noxagol]

there was a video where a guy did a comparison of somalia now and somalia with government, which is the only fair comparison. It was markedly improved. I'm trying to find it.

[Keller1967]

"Anarchy" is failing because for any system of order to be maintained, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS must be protected. They aren't in Somalia. That's it.

lol but taxes are an exception to this?

[John Taylor]

lol but taxes are an exception to this?

Did I say that?

Why do you support cannibalism?

[Keller1967]

Did I say that?

I was asking actually, so?

This biggest issue between (some) anarchists and minarchists is that we both agree that private property should be protected but then the minarchists turn around and say we have to protect property by violating property.

[John Taylor]

I was asking actually, so?

Private property rights can be protected without a publicly funded legal system. Under the common-law of England, private enforcement of property rights existed for hundreds upon hundreds of years, and was recognized and enshrined in such foundational laws as the Magna Carta and the Bill of Right in England.

So, why do you support eating babies?

[Keller1967]

Private property rights can be protected without a publicly funded legal system. Under the common-law of England, private enforcement of property rights existed for hundreds upon hundreds of years, and was recognized and enshrined in such foundational laws as the Magna Carta and the Bill of Right in England.

So, why do you support eating babies?

That sounds pretty good to me though, I would be curious as to who pays for common-law to function.

As for your question, well they just taste really good.

[tremendoustie]

OK, we agree that crime should be dealt with, but just calling murder a special case does little good for the victim, victim's relatives, and the criminal class. Who enforces justice? Hire bounty hunters? Who pays? The victim's family?


Protection agencies, and courts of arbitration, who serve the same functions as police and courts today. The only difference is, if you believe one protection service is doing a poor job, you can subscribe to a different one, whereas if police are abusive, you have no alternative.



Failing to penalize unjustified violence encourages more violence, which brings us back to Somalia. Why engage in a transaction when I can steal what I want?


If you harm others, or their property, you should be made to make restitution. If you're a clear, continuing threat to others, you should work off the debt in a secure environment.



Re: real estate example - there are other transactions that need to be accounted for - inspection, insurance, repair work. Is replacing the state with the escrow business a real solution? If I refuse to accept arbitration what happens?

Without an efficient mechanism, deals that should get done, don't. Even the idea of escrow implies some set of rules agreed to by all involved - which again begs the question of who enforces the rules.

If you violate a contract, the victim's protection agency will take yours to the designated court of arbitration, for disputes between them. If it is determined that you did indeed violate the contract, fair restitution will be decided upon, and you will be made to pay it.

[tremendoustie]

And I've been responding to comments from a year ago :o

[MelissaWV]

And I've been responding to comments from a year ago :o

Yep. Lots of zombie threads lately.

[NYgs23]

If I had a nickel for every time I heard the Somalia line...

Looks like I'm gonna have to post these videos now:

YouTube - True News 18: Somalia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI)

YouTube - True News 19: Somalia Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBuPECU0_P0)

[shaunish]

because the most of the people in Somalia have no concept of right, wrong, hygiene, fairness, money, etc.

they are arguably the least educated, barbaric cultures on the planet

[Fox McCloud]

one of the primary reasons is that it's not being allowed to work...that, and many of the small tribes are communistic in nature; publicly owned land, etc....basically they don't have private property rights yet....and well, all rights come from property rights, so if you don't have that, you don't have anything.

Theocrat, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one; if individuals are incapable of governing themselves because of their own sinful nature, why would a collectivistic government who hold the monopoly on coercive power, which is run by those sinful people be any better?

is is interesting to note they have the cheapest telecom rates in all of Africa though, because they have no mandates or regulations to comply with.

I might also add this, in regard to Romans 13: http://www.newswithviews.com/Gregory/williams100.htm

Also, you have to draw a distinction between government and the state--even in an anarcho-capitalist society government will be everywhere, it'll just be merely shifted to another entity--the individual and property holder--if you're on someone else's property, then you have to comply with the "governing authority" (the property owner) or face the consequences that he has outlined.

[noxagol]

Yes, those are the videos!

[RyanRSheets]

The populace determines whether or not despotism will prevail. This will always be true, regardless of the form of, or lack of, government. Anarcho-Capitalism is merely the fastest path to a robust and informed populace, because it is based on non-intervention and independence. The more responsibility people are given, the more responsible they will be. Drastic changes don't work overnight.

[Shotdown1027]

this is not to criticize Anarchy, but im curious as to why the Anarchy in Somolia has led to the "most dangerous state in the world" ?

i know there are some anarchists here and im curious on their take.

whether its external forces, internal or whatever the cause may be, Anarchy seems to have failed to create a prosperous nation in Somolia

Im sure someone has already said this, but im not willing to scroll through 11 pages to find out. The real question is, is Somolia BETTER OFF under anarchy than it is with government of various types? And is it better off under anarchy than it was before?

[QueenB4Liberty]

Anarchism never works. Government does have a legitimate purpose to serve: enforcing individual rights. Societies prosper to the extent to which the government fulfills this responsibility, and they fail to the extent to which the government fails. In a place where no government exists, of course there will be no enforcement of rights and so of course the society will fail. Likewise, in places where the government is willfully ignorant of individual rights and purposely violates them, such as in any socialist state, the society will similarly fail. A society can only prosper when the government enforces rights. Any action taken by the government that does not pursue this purpose will necessarily violate it and be counterproductive.

But you see what you're saying...you think a government should exist to protect people's "individual rights", but do government's not violate individual rights by just *existing*? The state depends on coercion and violence to survive, so how can it at the same time protect people's rights? Someone's gotta come out on the losing end, unless participation in government is strictly voluntary, and I've never run across any kind of state of the sort.

I mean, being a Libertarian means you are against coercion right? So by saying you are a Libertarian you are saying you're an anarchist. But I guess you're saying you're only for coercion when it's by a massive group of people, which is a contradiction in terms. But maybe that isn't what you are saying at all, I don't intend to be hostile.

Really when you think about it, what gives any man the right to rule over and make decision's about someone else's life? (If they are not violating the rights of someone else's person or property)

You say the state should only exist to protect people's rights, but why can't private companies serve the same purpose?

Even if we get down to "limited" government, doesn't the state always inevitably grow until it collapses?

[Inflation]

Anarchy fails in Somalia for the same reason Communism fails in Russia.

Both are functionally impossible to implement, and useful only as thought experiments in undergraduate polisci/philosophy classes.

The endless yet repetitive excuses for their mutual failures will always be along the same lines:

Russian "communism" wasn't really big-C "Communism" (if they had implemented it right, it would have succeeded BY DEFINITION).

Somalian "anarchy" wasn't really big-A "Anarchy" (if they had implemented it right, it would have succeeded BY DEFINITION).

[tremendoustie]

Anarchy fails in Somalia for the same reason Communism fails in Russia.

Both are functionally impossible to implement, and useful only as thought experiments in undergraduate polisci/philosophy classes.

The endless yet repetitive excuses for their mutual failures will always be along the same lines:

Russian "communism" wasn't really big-C "Communism" (if they had implemented it right, it would have succeeded BY DEFINITION).

Somalian "anarchy" wasn't really big-A "Anarchy" (if they had implemented it right, it would have succeeded BY DEFINITION).


And once again, the essential issue is not the lack of central government, the essential issue is a populace with a critical mass of people who stand against aggressive violence. In such a society, institutions are not based on aggressive violence, just as, in a society with a certain threshold of people who stand against slavery, institutions are not based on slavery.

If a society is full of men who endorse the initiation of aggressive violence as a means to force their will on others, no form of government, or lack thereof, will prevent them from doing so. Conversely, if a society is full of people who oppose the initiation of aggressive violence, any form of government, or lack thereof, will be reformed in accordance with this principle.

It's not about the system, or "implementing" anything, it's about the people.

[aravoth]

Anarchy fails in Somalia for the same reason Communism fails in Russia.

Both are functionally impossible to implement, and useful only as thought experiments in undergraduate polisci/philosophy classes.

The endless yet repetitive excuses for their mutual failures will always be along the same lines:

Russian "communism" wasn't really big-C "Communism" (if they had implemented it right, it would have succeeded BY DEFINITION).

Somalian "anarchy" wasn't really big-A "Anarchy" (if they had implemented it right, it would have succeeded BY DEFINITION).

You can not "implement" Anarchy, for the same reason you can not "enforce" liberty.

It's an oxymoron. Anarchy and liberty are natural states, you can only take away from them.

And the reason Somalia is such a shithole is because despotic warlords and foreign political entities routinely bend that country over.

That is about as far from Anarchy, or a "Libertarian Paradise" as you can get. Despite what douche bag bloggers at DailyKOS say.

If Somalia is an Anarchist paradise, then North Korea is a leftist paradise.

[tmosley]

All of you shut up and read this: http://mises.org/story/2066