Schiff: "We need to kill government"

[RevolutionSD]

Just said this on Alex Jones' show.
He called government the cancer that keeps growing and growing, and we need to kill it. I completely agree. You can't "shrink" cancer because it will simply grow again.

Our only choice is to get rid of the idea that we need a government.

[ClayTrainor]

He's absolutely correct, but i like Max Keiser's approach even more.

" There should be a fatwa against these guys. He’s an infidel. Henk Paulson. His head should be bouncing down the Capital steps! I am sorry but that’s the reality of the situation!"

And this was said on Live TV, not AJ's show.

We need a REAL revolution, if freedom is our goal, that much is clear.

[Ex Post Facto]

We need to become self sufficient in order to do this. We need a technology revolution.

[Jeremy]

He didn't mean abolish government completely. I highly doubt Peter Schiff is an anarchist.

[RevolutionSD]

We need to become self sufficient in order to do this. We need a technology revolution.

A technology revolution will only take place if we have a free market. (aka anarcho-capitalism).

[Jeremy]

A technology revolution will only take place if we have a free market. (aka anarcho-capitalism).

Um, no.

[Andrew-Austin]

Sounds like an anarchist, maybe hes just a minarchist though?

[Truth Warrior]

Perhaps, because it's SLOW self inflicted suicide process is killing us all eventually.<IMHO> :p :mad: Death by a thousand cuts. ;) Does anyone perchance have Dr. Kevorkians's phone number? :D

"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." -- Bob LeFevre

[Jeremy]

Sounds like an anarchist, maybe hes just a minarchist though?

When he says "kill government" he's talking about killing the problem in the economy (government intervention). Peter Schiff isn't an anarchist.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Over 50% of employed workers are now on the Government's payroll!

Look at California, largest Socialist state in the nation, highest cost of living, most combined taxes, and in a deep recession, they increase spending, and pay/benefit raises for themselves (gov employees), and run debt up even further.

California has turned goverment into a new relm of Parasites off the people and businesses. In doing such, they are on the verge of Collapse, but already oiling the wheels tol have the FEDERAL government BAILOUT their mismanagement and self indulgence. California's Government Cancer is going to cost the other 49 states... $10's of BILLIONS in FEDERAL taxpayer money.

Nevada - starting to turn... with all the Socialists from California moving here for a better quality of life and much loser taxes. Go back and take your communistic ideologies with yahs~!

[heavenlyboy34]

Perhaps, because it's SLOW self inflicted suicide process is killing us all eventually.<IMHO> :p :mad: Death by a thousand cuts. ;) Does anyone perchance have Dr. Kevorkians's phone number? :D

"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." -- Bob LeFevre

He's ran for congress in '08, so you might be able to track down his campaign with some googling. ;)

[No1ButPaul08]

When he says "kill government" he's talking about killing the problem in the economy (government intervention). Peter Schiff isn't an anarchist.

I agree, on WS Unspun, a caller asked if he was an an-cap like Rothbard. Schiff responded with something like, "well i'm not quite sure what that is. But I'm familiar with Rothbard and have read some of his stuff and agree with a lot he has to say."

[Andrew-Austin]

I agree, on WS Unspun, a caller asked if he was an an-cap like Rothbard. Schiff responded with something like, "well i'm not quite sure what that is. But I'm familiar with Rothbard and have read some of his stuff and agree with a lot he has to say."

Yeah, I'm sure hes been to mises.org, lewrockwell.com, and has read some of Murray's books. How then can he not know what anarcho-capitalism is? If the show is still going on someone call in and ask.

[lodge939]

We still need a government to provide defense, to uphold contracts and the Rule of Law. We dont want lynch mobs hanging people without a trial or anything like that.

[Truth Warrior]

We still need a government to provide defense, to uphold contracts and the Rule of Law. We dont want lynch mobs hanging people without a trial or anything like that. BTW, what % of today's government is that, if you happen to know? ;)

Thanks! :)

[InterestedParticipant]

He's absolutely correct, but i like Max Keiser's approach even more.

" There should be a fatwa against these guys. He’s an infidel. Henk Paulson. His head should be bouncing down the Capital steps! I am sorry but that’s the reality of the situation!"

This is an extremely important distinction between Keiser and Schiff that people should take strong note of. As stormcommander says below, did Schiff mean:

(1) "abolish gov't completely,"

or did he mean....

(2) "abolish this gov't?"


He didn't mean abolish government completely. I highly doubt Peter Schiff is an anarchist.


Meaning (2) is in alignment with Keiser, and sends the appropriate message that the current people in control of our government need to be replaced. Meaning (1) is in alignment with the establishments' goals, and that is to destroy our current governmental system and replace it with a much more oppressive system of 'private-public partnerships,' as called-out in the UN's Agenda 21 document.

Meaning (1) supports my earlier arguments and contentions, as presented in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1869860#post1869860), while meaning (2) puts Peter in alignment with the public.

Which is it, Peter?

[hadenough]

Doesn't the Constitution or something clearly state that the Govt. should be a negative force, which means 0% intervention. These idiots in Washington need to take some History or something.

They will never shrink that which gives them power, however. Which gets us right back to what we already know; Us vs. Them.

[The_Orlonater]

Let's get rid of this government, we have a right to overthrow it.

[Anti Federalist]

He's absolutely correct, but i like Max Keiser's approach even more.

" There should be a fatwa against these guys. He’s an infidel. Henk Paulson. His head should be bouncing down the Capital steps! I am sorry but that’s the reality of the situation!"

And this was said on Live TV, not AJ's show.

We need a REAL revolution, if freedom is our goal, that much is clear.

http://striderweb.com/wp-content/plugins/comment-spotlight/images/bravo.gif

[UnReconstructed]

you guys kill me...

how you believe that someone with a sound argument ''can't be an anarchist''

turn your fucking tv's off

if you knew about ANCAP then you would know who the anarchists are and if you do know and can't see them then open your eyes because we're everywhere

[Theocrat]

Just said this on Alex Jones' show.
He called government the cancer that keeps growing and growing, and we need to kill it. I completely agree. You can't "shrink" cancer because it will simply grow again.

Our only choice is to get rid of the idea that we need a government.

Peter Schiff is not an anarchist. He just believes the federal government should not be involved in a free-market economy. Nowhere has Schiff stated that we should burn our Constitution and live without legislatures, civil courts, and executive offices to administer and judge laws as well as punish criminals.

The choices are not either we have totalitarianism or we have anarchy. That is a false dichotomy. The issue is whether we have the right people elected to public offices who can uphold their oaths of office to honor the Constitution, which in our republic are men of moral integrity, sound principles, civic wisdom, and religious character.

We need limited government (restrained from controlling our goods and services in the market, among other things) but we dare not have no government at all, for there are other civil affairs which civil government is necessary for, such as the punishment of evildoers.

There is simply no way Congressman Paul would have appointed Peter Schiff as his Economic Advisor during his campaign if he believed Schiff was an anarchist. It wouldn't make sense for Peter Schiff to accept the job, either, to support a candidate to the highest government office in the land, were Schiff an anarchist.

[Truth Warrior]

Peter Schiff is not an anarchist. He just believes the federal government should not be involved in a free-market economy. Nowhere has Schiff stated that we should burn our Constitution and live without legislatures, civil courts, and executive offices to administer and judge laws as well as punish criminals.

The choices are not either we have totalitarianism or we have anarchy. That is a false dichotomy. The issue is whether we have the right people elected to public offices who can uphold their oaths of office to honor the Constitution, which in our republic are men of moral integrity, sound principles, civic wisdom, and religious character.

We need limited government (restrained from controlling our goods and services in the market, among other things) but we dare not have no government at all, for there are other civil affairs which civil government is necessary for, such as the punishment of evildoers.

There is simply no way Congressman Paul would have appointed Peter Schiff as his Economic Advisor during his campaign if he believed Schiff was an anarchist. It wouldn't make sense for Peter Schiff to accept the job, either, to support a candidate to the highest government office in the land, were Schiff an anarchist.

Question: Your solutions, on stopping drug trade, is, give up, give up to world drugs. I say zero tolerance, we use the military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs) for aid, we stop it from getting into the country, we cut it off at the source. Why give up on that fight?



Ron Paul: What you give up on is a tyrannical approach to solving a social and medical problem. We endorse the idea of voluntarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarism_(politics)), self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion, it never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person, it can't make you follow good habits. Why don't they put you on a diet, you're a little overweight...

The Morton Downey Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Downey,_Jr.) Show, July 4, 1988

[torchbearer]

How do you enforce contracts in anarchy?

[Bodhi]

Over 50% of employed workers are now on the Government's payroll!


Really? where do you get that stat from? Any decent sources to back that up?

[Working Poor]

chemo the government

[UnReconstructed]

3rd party arbitration, insurance companies... we can only dream of what a market ecosystem would provide

[mport1]

Just said this on Alex Jones' show.
He called government the cancer that keeps growing and growing, and we need to kill it. I completely agree. You can't "shrink" cancer because it will simply grow again.

Our only choice is to get rid of the idea that we need a government.

Yep, the idea that we could ever have a minimal government for an extended period of time is a fantasy. Not that any government whatsoever would be desirable. We must move towards total freedom.

I doubt that is what Schiff was proposing but it would be cool if he was a closet anarchist. I could understand why he wouldn't admit it even if he was though because that would be a huge killer to his business and media appearances because of the negative feelings people have about anarchists.

[lodge939]

Tim: If you were granted 3 legislative wishes from the financial genie what institutions or laws would you change, add or abolish?

Peter: I only need one. Abolish all government spending, agencies, departments, programs, and taxes not authorized by the constitution.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/008039.asp

[Theocrat]

3rd party arbitration, insurance companies... we can only dream of what a market ecosystem would provide


Yep, the idea that we could ever have a minimal government for an extended period of time is a fantasy. Not that any government whatsoever would be desirable. We must move towards total freedom.

Move to Somolia, and join the anarchy that's going on over there. ;)

[torchbearer]

3rd party arbitration, insurance companies... we can only dream of what a market ecosystem would provide

Explain this furthur to me... where does the arbitration power come from?
What if I refuse to recognize your arbitor?

[Truth Warrior]

How do you enforce contracts in anarchy? What does having a shepherd have to do with it? :D

[torchbearer]

What does having a shepherd have to do with it? :D

Not getting the connection to the question?
Are you saying there are no contracts in anarchy?

[torchbearer]

TW- I'm serious, if you can explain to me how anarchy works with contracts and such, you may gain a convert to your thinking... as of right now, i don't see how it works.

[lodge939]

An unelected 3rd party insurance company is gonna enforce contracts? Why would anyone take notice of them?

[UnReconstructed]

Yep, the idea that we could ever have a minimal government for an extended period of time is a fantasy. Not that any government whatsoever would be desirable. We must move towards total freedom.

People don't want total freedom. They want the nanny state... even these so-called "constitutional republicans/libertarians/wtf ever." That's what they mean when they say government should "protect life, liberty and property." They don't want the responsibility of protecting themselves or their property... they may want to own firearms but they aren't really prepared to use them. They would rather call the cops... call their mommies.

The government can kiss my ass. I'll protect my life, liberty and my property. Just get out of the way... die motherfucker die! The government is more of a threat to me than any amount of protection they say they provide. Government is just a gang... the biggest gang and that's why they are in charge. Not just the us government... ALL government.

They want to know when did a voluntary society ever exist? I want to know when did a government ever protect life, liberty and property? It has never existed and it never will. Government is evil at the very heart. I don't need anyone to govern me.

If you "constitutionalists" want a government then fine, do it but don't count me in it. That shit died a long time ago.

[torchbearer]

For instance,
you want me to build a house for you.
I tell you I need half the money up front before i start to build it.

You pay me, then I i decide not to build your house. What is your recourse in anarchy?

[Truth Warrior]

Not getting the connection to the question?
Are you saying there are no contracts in anarchy? No, I'm saying that in anarchy there are no rulers ( shepherds ). ;) :)

anarchy

1539, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader" (see archon (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archon)). Anarchist (1678) got a boost into modernity from the French Revolution. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded 1913.

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

[torchbearer]

No, I'm saying that in anarchy there are no rulers ( shepherds ). ;) :)

anarchy

1539, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader" (see archon (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archon)). Anarchist (1678) got a boost into modernity from the French Revolution. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded 1913.

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

which means no contracts because there are no enforcers of the agreement.

[Theocrat]

People don't want total freedom. They want the nanny state... even these so-called "constitutional republicans/libertarians/wtf ever." That's what they mean when they say government should "protect life, liberty and property." They don't want the responsibility of protecting themselves or their property... they may want to own firearms but they aren't really prepared to use them. They would rather call the cops... call their mommies.

The government can kiss my ass. I'll protect my life, liberty and my property. Just get out of the way... die motherfucker die! The government is more of a threat to me than any amount of protection they say they provide. Government is just a gang... the biggest gang and that's why they are in charge. Not just the us government... ALL government.

They want to know when did a voluntary society ever exist? I want to know when did a government ever protect life, liberty and property? It has never existed and it never will. Government is evil at the very heart. I don't need anyone to govern me.

If you "constitutionalists" want a government then fine, do it but don't count me in it. That shit died a long time ago.

Well, you're going to have a real problem with people like Congressman Paul who believe it is their civic duty to uphold a limited government bound by its duties listed in the Constitution as public servants of the People. As I alluded to in an earlier post on this thread, Somolia is a great place for anarchists to colonize, so why not try there? You can have your anarchy and the poverty that comes with it, too. :D

[yoshimaroka]

I suggest going to anarchist message boards to find out about anarchist ideas.

* http://www.strike-the-root.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.pl
* http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/
* http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/index.html


just did a quick ***tube search, this guy proposes DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations— quasi insurance companies):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw

[torchbearer]

I suggest going to anarchist message boards to find out about anarchist ideas.

* http://www.strike-the-root.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.pl
* http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/
* http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/index.html


just did a quick ***tube search, this guy proposes DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations— quasi insurance companies):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw

Right, like i'd recognize their authority if I violated a contract.
What are they going to do? My mob has more guns.

[ClayTrainor]

which means no contracts because there are no enforcers of the agreement.

Contract law is one of the most crucial aspects of the constitution, imo.

[torchbearer]

Contract law is one of the most crucial aspects of the constitution, imo.

without contract law you can't have a thriving economy.

[Theocrat]

I suggest going to anarchist message boards to find out about anarchist ideas.

* http://www.strike-the-root.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.pl
* http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/
* http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/index.html


just did a quick ***tube search, this guy proposes DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations— quasi insurance companies):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw

Great. Not only do we have to fight off the threat of totalitarians in our republic, but now we have anarchists forming behind the trenches. The war for our civil liberties has become such a battlezone of competing ideas. Who should we expect next, the secular statists? Oh, wait. They're already on the field...

[Truth Warrior]

TW- I'm serious, if you can explain to me how anarchy works with contracts and such, you may gain a convert to your thinking... as of right now, i don't see how it works. Trust the voluntary "FREE" market place to come up with the solutions. ;)

Though it's REALLY a very moot point as long as the STATE continues to GROW.<IMHO> :rolleyes:

[UnReconstructed]

Well, you're going to have a real problem with people like Congressman Paul who believe it is their civic duty to uphold a limited government bound by its duties listed in the Constitution as public servants of the People. As I alluded to in an earlier post on this thread, Somolia is a great place for anarchists to colonize, so why not try there? You can have your anarchy and the poverty that comes with it, too. :D

He has sworn an oath to this paper and believes, rightfully so, that he and others should uphold their word. He has consistently said that the constitution should be amended to allow government to do the things it is doing that is why he calls government action "unconstitutional."

If the constitution were amended to say that government could tax at 90% then he would support the constitution still. If the constitution were amended to say that there should be no hard currency and every thing was bought and sold using electronic credits then he would support the constitution

The "love it or leave it" argument is weak. The southern states tried that and it didn't work.

Government is enmity against God. How do you like me now?

[torchbearer]

Great. Not only do we have to fight off the threat of totalitarians in our republic, but now we have anarchists forming behind the trenches. The war for our civil liberties has become such a battlezone of competing ideas. Who should we expect next, the secular statists? Oh, wait. They're already on the field...

The idea of the minimal central government through a constitutional republic was the right track.
It wasn't the perfect solution, but indeed, these same debates were had many years ago.

I understand the underlying desire of the anarchist on this board.
i don't need someone to run my life, but at the same time, there is some need for enforcement of contracts, and punishment for those who destroy other people's rights.
The only things a government hasn't any justification for doing.

The anarchist is the over-reaction of the totalitarian state.

[Theocrat]

Trust the voluntary "FREE" market place to come up with the solutions. ;)

Though it's REALLY a very moot point as long as the STATE continues to GROW.<IMHO> :rolleyes:

TW, torchbearer is asking you a very legitimate question, but I have yet to see you answer it without empty rhetoric and vague quotations. Please answer his question thoughtfully and in detail because there are other members here who would like to know your answer to how contracts would be enforced in a "voluntaryist" or anarchist society.

[torchbearer]

Trust the voluntary "FREE" market place to come up with the solutions. ;)

Though it's REALLY a very moot point as long as the STATE continues to GROW.<IMHO> :rolleyes:

Which is no answer at all. good one.

[yoshimaroka]

Right, like i'd recognize their authority if I violated a contract.
What are they going to do? My mob has more guns.

I don't know, I'm not an authority on anything.

[Truth Warrior]

which means no contracts because there are no enforcers of the agreement. Just a SWAG, since I'm NO shepherd, those that welch on contracts will very quickly discover that NO ONE wants to do business with them.<IMHO> ;) The "system" self corrects.

[torchbearer]

I don't know, I'm not an authority on anything.

At least you have the wisdom to know that unlike TW who tries to justify the unjustifiable.

I seriously want him to show me how an economy would survive in anarchy and he can't.

I'm waiting for the Kenyan POTUS remark and sequential links to lew.... because he has no real answer.

[UnReconstructed]

Who is enforcing contracts now?

[torchbearer]

Just a SWAG, since I'm NO shepherd, those that welch on contracts will very quickly discover that NO ONE wants to do business with them.<IMHO> ;)

Sometimes, things happen. They are not intended.
Perhaps you thought you asked for 6 windows, he only built 5(who knows why....maybe by accident)
You want your money back(or some of it)... he would go broke paying you...
You got screwed... but others will still do business with him.
You got fucked. Take it with your anarchy.

[torchbearer]

Who is enforcing contracts now?

Civil Courts in Louisiana have that authority.

[yoshimaroka]

Great. Not only do we have to fight off the threat of totalitarians in our republic, but now we have anarchists forming behind the trenches. The war for our civil liberties has become such a battlezone of competing ideas. Who should we expect next, the secular statists? Oh, wait. They're already on the field...

Hehe, this thread is getting heated.

I learned about Ron Paul and then libertarianism and then anarchism , and I keep on learning. I'm merely suggesting things that are generally FOR liberty… I've been promoting Ron Paul to people in Canada.

I'm happy that I'm able to talk about anarchism on this board without being shut down immediately; the wonders Ron Paul did for mainstream liberty ideas.

[Truth Warrior]

Sometimes, things happen. They are not intended.
Perhaps you thought you asked for 6 windows, he only built 5(who knows why....maybe by accident)
You want your money back(or some of it)... he would go broke paying you...
You got screwed... but others will still do business with him.
You got fucked. Take it with your anarchy. Kinda like under "archy", eh? :D Caveat emptor!!!!

Contract insurance, performance bonds, customer satisfaction guaranteed, etc., the maket place WILL work it out.<IMHO> ;)

[torchbearer]

Hehe, this thread is getting heated.

I learned about Ron Paul and then libertarianism and then anarchism , and I keep on learning. I'm merely suggesting things that are generally FOR liberty… I've been promoting Ron Paul to people in Canada.

I'm happy that I'm able to talk about anarchism on this board without being shut down immediately; the wonders Ron Paul did for mainstream liberty ideas.

Despite my heated debates, I have an understanding for the anarchist... but minarchist and the varying degrees of some minimal enforcement have way more credibility for a functional economy.
There are too many crooked ass people fucking other people over to ever think that an economy could exist with no contract enforcers.
It would be the "law of the jungle", "mob rule" in anarchy, which is just another form of statism.

[yoshimaroka]

Found another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIgHO8SZJdI


Again, If you truly want to find out about Ron Paul flavor libertarianism(not simply looking for an argument), it's a good idea to visit related sites. This applies to everything… nudge nudge, wink wink :)

[yoshimaroka]

Despite my heated debates, I have an understanding for the anarchist... but minarchist and the varying degrees of some minimal enforcement have way more credibility for a functional economy.
There are too many crooked ass people fucking other people over to ever think that an economy could exist with no contract enforcers.
It would be the "law of the jungle", "mob rule" in anarchy, which is just another form of statism.

Gotcha.

Good point, I'm putting that on my research list.

[UnReconstructed]

Civil Courts in Louisiana have that authority.

Do the courts actually do that? Wouldn't the constitution be a contract? It seems to me that government only protects itself and therefore would only enforce contracts that would benefit government.

[torchbearer]

Do the courts actually do that? Wouldn't the constitution be a contract? It seems to me that government only protects itself and therefore would only enforce contracts that would benefit government.

Louisiana doesn't need a federal government to enforce its contracts.

[socialize_me]

Which is no answer at all. good one.

Torchbearer--it's because Truth Warrior doesn't have a clue. His responses completely miss the topic. I mean, he gave you a definition of anarchy when you were asking how contracts would be enforced. That's like me telling you the years the American Revolution was fought when you asked for the causes of it. What's worse is he doesn't even understand he's missed the question completely then snickers at how slick he is.

He has no answers. He just has quotes and definitions he googles.

[UnReconstructed]

Are the Louisiana courts enforcing contracts? It seems to me that [the Louisiana] government only protects itself and therefore would only enforce contracts that would benefit [the Louisiana] government.

[torchbearer]

Are the Louisiana courts enforcing contracts? It seems to me that [the Louisiana] government only protects itself and therefore would only enforce contracts that would benefit [the Louisiana] government.

"It seems to you"?
Weird words for sure.
Louisiana does enforce contracts through the courts, which are seperate from the actual governing body. (we are based on napoleanic law, not common law)
If you don't fulfil your contract, a court will hear the case, and decide on the remedy, and has a law body to enforce that remedy.
Any questions?

[UnReconstructed]

Probably one that can't be answered which would be did Louisiana enforce the insurance policies after Katrina

EDIT:

I'm not trying to take shots but what I am saying is that government does not do what it says it does. It is a self licking ice cream cone.

[torchbearer]

Probably one that can't be answered which would be did Louisiana enforce the insurance policies after Katrina

As far as I know, they did.
It just took time for the courts to go through all the cases, so it took a long time for people to get recourse.

[Athan]

He's absolutely correct, but i like Max Keiser's approach even more.

" There should be a fatwa against these guys. He’s an infidel. Henk Paulson. His head should be bouncing down the Capital steps! I am sorry but that’s the reality of the situation!"

And this was said on Live TV, not AJ's show.

We need a REAL revolution, if freedom is our goal, that much is clear.

You know, crazy situation, but lets say the government is minimized and the people take over. There is going to have to be some sort of association that will have to police the politicians 24/7 from legislatively to recreation. Sort of like a hypothetical "Jedi order" that can snip buds of growth and corruption before they even get to take wing. Maybe even take out central bankers and dangerous special interests.

Otherwise, people are going to have to just deal with this shit constantly over enough time.

[mport1]

TW- I'm serious, if you can explain to me how anarchy works with contracts and such, you may gain a convert to your thinking... as of right now, i don't see how it works.

Since I don't think your question has been adequately addressed, I will provide you with some info.

As Truth Warrior stated, there is no way of knowing how exactly everything would actually play out in the market. This is the beauty of the market. There are millions upon millions of people competing for a profit who would have the ability to develop ideas on how to most effectively administer justice.

Some anarchist thinkers have proposed what I think are some good ideas but that is not to say that there are not better ones that would arise. I will let these guys do the explaining since they have some pretty detailed ideas on how functions of the court would be handled in the market and make this more clear than I would be able to. Essentially, competing private agencies would administer justice unlike the current monopolistic system which I am sure we can all agree has some serious flaws with it. Here are some works to look at if you would like:

Rothbard on the courts without a state - http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p215

Stefan Molyneuex on handling violent crime without a state. Contract enforcement would be handled similarly although would likely be much simpler. - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html

Stefan's book Practical Anarchy describing how contracts are enforced and such. Starting on page 70 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/3867604/FDR-5-Practical-Anarchy

Here is Rothbard with a detailed description on the types of enforcable contracts in the libertarian framework - http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp

The book The Market For Liberty also provides great examples of how contract enforcement and the courts could look without a state. - http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/


Please let me know if you have questions about any of this.

[Jeremy]

you guys kill me...

how you believe that someone with a sound argument ''can't be an anarchist''

turn your fucking tv's off

if you knew about ANCAP then you would know who the anarchists are and if you do know and can't see them then open your eyes because we're everywhere

He said he didn't even know what an anarcho-capitalist is. FAIL

He's a minarchist. When he's on TV he doesn't say thing like "I think there should be no government." Instead he would say something "I think the government should stop intervening in the market."

[Josh_LA]

Just said this on Alex Jones' show.
He called government the cancer that keeps growing and growing, and we need to kill it. I completely agree. You can't "shrink" cancer because it will simply grow again.

Our only choice is to get rid of the idea that we need a government.

so you mean to tell me he didn't literally mean murder people in the government?

[LibertyEagle]

He has sworn an oath to this paper and believes, rightfully so, that he and others should uphold their word. He has consistently said that the constitution should be amended to allow government to do the things it is doing that is why he calls government action "unconstitutional."

FAIL.

Ron Paul has ALWAYS espoused the Constitution. Even when he is not in office.

Sorry, but that's the truth of the matter.

[Brassmouth]

*Note before I get flamed: I don't actually think Schiff is an anarchist, although I will believe that it's possible, until someone provides me with evidence. As such, I will play the Devil's Advocate.*


Peter Schiff is not an anarchist.


Peter Schiff isn't an anarchist.

Evidence or STFU. :)


Yeah, I'm sure hes been to mises.org, lewrockwell.com, and has read some of Murray's books. How then can he not know what anarcho-capitalism is? If the show is still going on someone call in and ask.

I'm pretty sure Schiff isn't retarded, and either misheard or never heard the specific term "anarcho-capitalist" before. I doubt he spends all his time on the internet researching political philosophy, especially with a family and a business to run. Now, if the caller was intelligent and asked something like "Do you believe government has a legitimate role in society?" then maybe we'd get somewhere.

OR he didn't want to admit to being an anarchist, which could potentially alienate possible clients.



The choices are not either we have totalitarianism or we have anarchy.

Historically, that is precisely what the choices are. Name me one State that didn't end up enslaving it's people.


We need limited government (restrained from controlling our goods and services in the market, among other things) but we dare not have no government at all, for there are other civil affairs which civil government is necessary for, such as the punishment of evildoers.

You clearly have some reading to do.


There is simply no way Congressman Paul would have appointed Peter Schiff as his Economic Advisor during his campaign if he believed Schiff was an anarchist. It wouldn't make sense for Peter Schiff to accept the job, either, to support a candidate to the highest government office in the land, were Schiff an anarchist.

Um, then how do you explain Murray Rothbard working so closely with Cato (a founding member even) and the Libertarian Party?


without contract law you can't have a thriving economy.

Absolutely correct. All the more reason why a government monopoly is totally ridiculous, as are all monopolies. Let the market (read:consumer [read: you and me]) dictate the legal system(s).

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

I still can't grasp why you guys fight and squirm against the pure, brilliant logic of anarchy.

Courts, civil protection, etc. are services. You'll have them in a stateless society for the same reason you'll have grapes and Ipods.

All government does is create a monopoly over those services, with the assumption that one group is the sole mediator, unbegotten to any sort of oversight or debate. That is the very definition of lawlessness. If there isn't a potential for multiple choices, then the person who has the market cornered is behaving fraudulently and/or violently.

[Josh_LA]

*Note before I get flamed: I don't actually think Schiff is an anarchist, although I will believe that it's possible, until someone provides me with evidence. As such, I will play the Devil's Advocate.*





Evidence or STFU. :)



I'm pretty sure Schiff isn't retarded, and either misheard or never heard the specific term "anarcho-capitalist" before. I doubt he spends all his time on the internet researching political philosophy, especially with a family and a business to run. Now, if the caller was intelligent and asked something like "Do you believe government has a legitimate role in society?" then maybe we'd get somewhere.

OR he didn't want to admit to being an anarchist, which could potentially alienate possible clients.




Historically, that is precisely what the choices are. Name me one State that didn't end up enslaving it's people.



You clearly have some reading to do.



Um, then how do you explain Murray Rothbard working so closely with Cato (a founding member even) and the Libertarian Party?



Absolutely correct. All the more reason why a government monopoly is totally ridiculous, as are all monopolies. Let the market (read:consumer [read: you and me]) dictate the legal system(s).

Why do you believe a Theocrat has the brains to comprehend or tolerate your faith in humans that he'd understand the beauty of anarchism just by reading?

Also, I don't think Schiff, or any rich person is an anarchist. I don't think in an anarchist and stateless world their wealth can be maintained.

[Josh_LA]

I still can't grasp why you guys fight and squirm against the pure, brilliant logic of anarchy.

Courts, civil protection, etc. are services. You'll have them in a stateless society for the same reason you'll have grapes and Ipods.

All government does is create a monopoly over those services, with the assumption that one group is the sole mediator, unbegotten to any sort of oversight or debate. That is the very definition of lawlessness. If there isn't a potential for multiple choices, then the person who has the market cornered is behaving fraudulently and/or violently.

Why? Easy, they are afraid to give humans the benefit of doubt.

Which I am personally more than happy to deny for them.

[LibertyEagle]

*Note before I get flamed: I don't actually think Schiff is an anarchist, although I will believe that it's possible, until someone provides me with evidence. As such, I will play the Devil's Advocate.*

Evidence or STFU. :)

It's up to those making the claim that he IS, to come up with the evidence.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Why? Easy, they are afraid to give humans the benefit of doubt.

Which I am personally more than happy to deny for them.I see government as more a "benefit of the doubt" given to people than liberty, as it opens the floodgates for corrupt, corruptible, and just downright stupid people to attain power over the intelligent and virtuous.

I mean, the simple fact that a guy like Sam Brownback could make it into high office should be enough to set the streets of DC on fire. Government is worse than evil, it's retarded.

[Brassmouth]

It's up to those making the claim that he IS, to come up with the evidence.

Um, are you blind? I claimed nothing. They claimed (without evidence) that he definitely is not an anarchist. The burden of proof is on them.


Why do you believe a Theocrat has the brains to comprehend or tolerate your faith in humans that he'd understand the beauty of anarchism just by reading?

Also, I don't think Schiff, or any rich person is an anarchist. I don't think in an anarchist and stateless world their wealth can be maintained.

I wholly agree with your first point. Wholly disagree with your second, unless you're referring to them losing their wealth during the transition to anarchy, through the fiat currency meltdown or any sort of violence that may occur when the State tries to save itself.

[Josh_LA]

I see government as more a "benefit of the doubt" given to people than liberty, as it opens the floodgates for corrupt, corruptible, and just downright stupid people to attain power over the intelligent and virtuous.

I mean, the simple fact that a guy like Sam Brownback could make it into high office should be enough to set the streets of DC on fire. Government is worse than evil, it's retarded.

agreed

[Josh_LA]

I wholly agree with your first point. Wholly disagree with your second, unless you're referring to them losing their wealth during the transition to anarchy, through the fiat currency meltdown or any sort of violence that may occur when the State tries to save itself.

Maybe I need to clarify my opinion on anarchism.

I don't believe anarcho-capitalism is anarchism, it is still using force & government to maintain a person's property. And in anarchism, in the long run, personal property is hard to maintain (and probably undesirable).

My point was, that rich people who have something to lose are not likely going to favor reduction of government if it means reduction or protection of their wealth.

[Brassmouth]

Maybe I need to clarify my opinion on anarchism.

I don't believe anarcho-capitalism is anarchism, it is still using force & government to maintain a person's property. And in anarchism, in the long run, personal property is hard to maintain (and probably undesirable).

My point was, that rich people who have something to lose are not likely going to favor reduction of government if it means reduction or protection of their wealth.

Either I'm really tired or you're contradicting yourself. Honestly, it's probably both. Anyway, yeah, I don't generally distinguish between rich and poor, except when the rich are politically connected.

How is anarcho-capitalism not anarchy? Do you mean it doesn't fit the chaotic, lawless, evil society that the State tells us anarchy is? Because that's just propaganda...

[mport1]

One more thing. The question of contracts would be pretty simple in a truly free market. As people want to ensure that contracts are enforced, they would include in all of their contracts a provision as to which arbitrator would be used in the case of a dispute.

[nodope0695]

Just said this on Alex Jones' show.
He called government the cancer that keeps growing and growing, and we need to kill it. I completely agree. You can't "shrink" cancer because it will simply grow again.

Our only choice is to get rid of the idea that we need a government.


uhhh, d'ya think? FCUK 'em all.

[RevolutionSD]

Move to Somolia, and join the anarchy that's going on over there. ;)

Somalia has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism.
Centuries of dictatorships and horrible philosohpies do not change simply because of no government. They have a tribal mentality.

Beyond that, if you really look at the statistics and turn off your TVs, you will see that Somalia is actually better off without a government in terms of business, poverty, and even crime.

[RevolutionSD]

I still can't grasp why you guys fight and squirm against the pure, brilliant logic of anarchy.

Courts, civil protection, etc. are services. You'll have them in a stateless society for the same reason you'll have grapes and Ipods.

All government does is create a monopoly over those services, with the assumption that one group is the sole mediator, unbegotten to any sort of oversight or debate. That is the very definition of lawlessness. If there isn't a potential for multiple choices, then the person who has the market cornered is behaving fraudulently and/or violently.

GREAT post, exactly, BINGO, this is why we need to move past the idea that we NEED government in our lives in any respect whatsoever.

A great book that knocks all the pro-government arguments out of the park is Complete Liberty by Wes Bertrand. You can download the pdf or audio on www.completeliberty.com...also check out the podcast!

[mediahasyou]

Government deserves to live. However, all people deserve a voluntary government.

[danberkeley]

He didn't mean abolish government completely. I highly doubt Peter Schiff is an anarchist.

No. Schiff is a Rothbardian. Rothbardian's are Anti-state.

[danberkeley]

We still need a government to provide defense, to uphold contracts and the Rule of Law. We dont want lynch mobs hanging people without a trial or anything like that.

No we do not. Lynch mobs are democratic.

[mport1]

GREAT post, exactly, BINGO, this is why we need to move past the idea that we NEED government in our lives in any respect whatsoever.

A great book that knocks all the pro-government arguments out of the park is Complete Liberty by Wes Bertrand. You can download the pdf or audio on www.completeliberty.com...also check out the podcast!

Nice, I've been craving some more anarcho-cap material to put on my ipod.

[powerofreason]

First and foremost, anarchy is a moral position. What I really mean is, if anarchy really could not work, and really is just chaos anarchists would still be anarchists. Why? Its quite simple. The voluntaryist opposes aggressive violence. Period. End o' story. That being said, equally impressive utilitarian arguments for abolishing the state can be made.

First off, lets start with Somalia. And firstly, lets realize that the question is not whether all Somalians are living under a utopian paradise, simply whether they are better off without a state. The answer to that question is a resounding YES. Somalia has private law called the Xeer which is very much libertarian in nature. I suggest reading the following two mises articles to understand how much Somalians lives have improved.

The Rule of Law Without the State
http://mises.org/story/2701

Stateless in Somalia, And Loving It
http://mises.org/story/2066

more on the way.....

[powerofreason]

Stateless Societies of the Past - The following is a post by Francois Tremblay from GOTG. Link to original post here: http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5424

This list is not complete.


Some short history lessons

Perhaps markets in things understood to belong to the category of the State's ill-gotten gains have flourished in the past and are eminently workable, but what about the whole of society? Has there ever been a full-fledged society without a State?

Actually, yes. There have been many developed societies with no State and yet with sophisticated legal concepts, co-existing much more peacefully then their statist equivalents, and in some cases enjoying more civil liberties as well. Let us go through the most well-known examples:


1. Medieval Iceland- 930 to 1262 CE

Iceland was populated by refugees, approximately seventy thousand of them, mostly coming from the newly formed Norwegian monarchy and its feudal regime. They based their new society on Western European traditions but replaced the king with an assembly of chieftains, established by purely contractual allegiance. Iceland was divided in four quarters and nine chieftains per quarter, but within each quarter people were free to pledge allegiance to any chieftain they desired. The Icelandic system was not a territorial system, nor was it monopoloid, nor was it based on kinship or tribes, but rather governance was established by contracts, making it specifically a Market Anarchy.

The legislature was composed of the law-speaker, elected every three years, the thirty-six chieftains, seventy-two advisors, and twelve other citizens. Decisions about the laws were taken by unanimity, and when unanimity was not possible, majority vote. Courts were disposed in levels, first private arbitration courts, then regional courts, then quarter courts, then the general assembly, with verdicts decided on 83% majorities (30 votes out of 36 or more). Anyone who refused the verdict of the courts could be sued again by the same defendant, in order to have him declared an outlaw.

All property was privately owned, including restitution rights, granting a person with more time and money the possibility of pursing justice for someone poorer.

When statists claim that Anarchy would quickly degenerate into civil war, it is instructive to compare the 300 years of peace of the Icelandic Anarchy to the mere 85 years it took for the "United States" to have its first civil war, and its further degeneration into a democracy. By all accounts, the Icelandic system was peaceful compared to its monarchic competitors.

The final irony? The Icelandic Anarchy collapsed not because of its private nature, but because of the intervention of the Norwegian monarchy, who used the Christian religion to polarize Icelandic society (through the tithe system, which concentrated wealth and was fixed by law) and eventually take it over. If the Icelandic system allowed for alternate laws, then it may have been able to survive this trial. Either way, critics of the Icelandic system call it "chaos," but it lasted three hundred years, and without competing States may have lasted centuries more. And even at its worst, when the system was disintegrating, the civil unrest was subdued by our standards:

One indication that the total amount of violence may have been relatively small is a calculation based on the Sturlung sagas. During more than fifty years of what the Icelanders themselves perceived as intolerably violent civil war, leading to the collapse of the traditional system, the average number of people killed or executed each year appears, on a per capita basis, to be roughly equal to the current rate of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter in the United States.

For more on the Icelandic Anarchy, see:
Jesse L. Byock, Medieval Iceland: Society, Sagas, and Power
William Ian Miller, Bloodtaking and Peacemaking: Feud, Law, and Society in Saga Iceland
David Friedman, "Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case," Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 8, March 1979, p. 400
Thomas Whiston, "Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government"
Roderick T. Long, "Privatization, Viking Style: Model or Misfortune?"
Roderick T. Long, "The Decline and Fall of Private Law in Iceland"
Birgir T. Runolfsson Solvason, "Ordered Anarchy: Evolution of the Decentralized Legal Order in the Icelandic Commonwealth"


2. Somalia- 1991 to 2006 CE

"Somalia" had been the scene of constant civil war since 1977, let by a military government. In 1991, the State was uprooted, and the northern part of "Somalia," called "Somaliland," declared its independence and became a democratic State subordinating traditional tribal governance. The various clans of "Somalia" defeated the government in place. Two years later, they also defeated a "US"/UN coalition dedicated to restoring the former military government. "Somalia" was now an Anarchy.

With its limited existence (15 years) and its primitive nature ("Somalia" was one of the poorest countries in the world to begin with), the Somali Anarchy mainly stayed at the level of kinship-based clans, although there was a contractual aspect as well. Clans were composed of a number of extended families called jilib. Families, jilib and clans each had a judge, who settled disputes according to customary law, and these judges were voluntarily chosen. The jilib also served as an insurance system, much like the borh- everyone paid for the infractions of one of their members. And this is where the contractual aspect comes in, as, again like the borh, people could be kicked out of the jilib, or join it, or make their own.

The clan-based kinship system had its drawbacks. For one thing, clansmen had to share some of their resources within the clan. Also, clans were in a state of animosity towards each other, and foreigners were usually not recognized or accepted, although at least some clans were shown to be open for business with foreigners and showed an understanding of what was needed for their territory to become successful. Despite these shortcomings, they had no affection for statism:

The name that the Somalis give to western-style government is waxan, which means "the thing." This nuance of vocabulary shows that there is no place in their mind for a centralized, monopolized government.

The economy has maintained a 2% growth rate throughout the Anarchic period. The amount of phone lines was multiplied by 7, and there were more than 50,000 mobile subscribers as well. In the absence of a power grid, electricity was provided by the market through the use of generators. A private provision system for water served all parts of the territory. The plane travel market went from one local business having only one airplane and one outside route, to 15 businesses with more than 60 airplanes, with airports outsourcing their security needs. Exports grew fivefold.

The Somali adopted various ways to deal with the unsophisticated nature of their institutions. They relied on foreign institutions and their already-established rules, for example, for airline safety, currency stability, and corporate law. They used clans and international networks to help with the transmission of funds and contract enforcement.

The Somali Anarchy was destroyed by the constant threat of foreign invasion and the formation of a new State. Clans fought to establish their dominance over that future State:

To fend off the possibility of being dominated, each clan tries to capture the power of that government before it can become a threat. Those clans that didn't share in the spoils of political power would realize their chances of becoming part of the ruling alliance were nil. Therefore, they would rebel and try to secede. That would prompt the ruling clans to use every means to suppress these centrifugal forces… in the end all clans would fight with one another.

Safety in the main city of Mogadishu was not assured, but even with these battles going on intermittently, Somali territory was quite safe by and large. Now, thanks to the constant pressure exerted by the United Nations against the Somali Anarchy, and especially "United States" financing of the clan clashes, "Somalia" is a country once again, dominated by extremist Islamists, and all hopes for peace or permanent progress in "Somalia" are gone, at least for the foreseeable future.

For more on the Somali Anarchy, see:
Michael Van Notten, The Law of the Somalis: A Stable Foundation for Economic Development in the Horn of Africa
Peter D. Little, Somalia: Economy Without State
Peter T. Leeson, "Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse"
Yumi Kim, "Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It," Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 21 Feb. 2006.
Tatiana Nenova and Tim Harford, "Anarchy and Invention," Public Policy for the Private Sector Journal, November 2004, Note No. 280.
Jim Davidson, "Somalia and Anarchy," Formulations, Issue #30 (Summer 2001).
Shafer Parker, "The Answer for Africa," LewRockwell.com, 26 Jun. 2002.


3. The Old West- 1840 to 1890, depending on area

The Old West was not as much a case of an established Anarchy as it was the natural consequence of a very progressive expansion. With the California Gold Rush and the Mormon migration, the 1840s saw the first big rushes towards the West. By 1890, there was no frontier left south of Alaska.

That 50-year time period saw a wide variety of methods for self-governance, based on individualism, property rights and relative tolerance. Since I have already described most of those methods, there will be no point in repeating them here.

For more on the Old West and self-governance, see:
W. Eugene Hollon, Frontier Violence: Another Look
Frank Richard Prassel, The Western Peace Officer: A Legacy of Law and Order
Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History
Louis Pelzer, The Cattlemen's Frontier
Charles Shinn, Mining Camps: A Study in American Frontier Government
J. H. Beadle, Western wilds and the men who redeem them: An authentic narrative, embracing an account of seven years travel and adventure in the far West
Terry L. Anderson and P.J. Hill, "An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West"


4. Celtic/Medieval Ireland- ? to the early 17th century

It is unclear exactly when the Irish Anarchy begins, or whether such a delimitation even exists historically. As far as we know, no State existed on the island until 1541, when "Ireland" was declared an "English" colony. We know for a fact, however, that the Anarchic system in Ireland existed for more than a thousand years.

All landowners who wished to be part of society were part of a tuath, and there were around 80 to 100 tuatha throughout Ireland at any given time. Being a landowner was an important indicator of status, and the Irish Anarchy had a very stratified society, but your status was not fixed by birth. The law said, "everyone may become free by his wealth and unfree by his lips."

The members of a tuath formed annual assemblies that established common policies, elected new kings, and declared war or peace. The Irish Anarchy was a Market Anarchy, insofar as anyone could join any tuath, regardless of kinship or location, or a group of people, dissatisfied with a state of affairs, could even form their own tuath. The king was chosen within one bloodline, but did not control the tuath; his post was the equivalent of a high priest and military leader, but he had no legislative powers.

The Druids, and then later the filid (poets), were the keepers of the law, but the brehons were the lawmakers, and sometimes acted as arbitrators as well. They were a distinct class of society, just below the kings in reputation, sometimes holding the title from heredity, and were not tied to any specific tuath. There was also no police. Rather, an individual suing another for a crime would persuade other people to be his sureties, and help him get the defendant to court and get his due if he won the case. Property was central to Irish life. It determined one's rank and one's honour-price, an amount of resources that was calculated based on their rank, which represented how much they could give as a surety. Being a surety was risky, but could lead to payment as well. As such, the sureties were a strange mix between insurance and unofficial policemen. No doubt their lack of resources in establishing a police class may have contributed to this mix.

Apart from its social and legal complexity, the Irish Anarchy was culturally advanced and, compared to the other States at the time, peaceful. By the 8th century, a wife had the right to sue, to get sureties, make contracts (although under the veto of her husband), cancel unsafe contracts made by her husband, and even the right to divorce for a multitude of reasons. By comparison, English law centuries later revoked those rights to women when "Ireland" became "English" property. Irish law recognized ten categories of sexual relationships, each with a precise legal character, some of which would be considered promiscuous or polygamous by our standards.

For more on the Irish Anarchy and the data used here, see:
D. A. Binchy, ed., Studies in Early Irish Law
D. A. Binchy, "Ancient Irish Law," The Irish Jurist, Vol. 1, 1966, pp. 84-92
Joseph Peden, "Property Right in Celtic Irish Law," Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp.81-95.
Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, pp. 231-233


There was also the case of a curious temporary Anarchy in Pennsylvania from 1684 to 1688, when the colony simply rejected the embryonic State there and acted of their own accord. This is described in Edwin B. Bronner's William Penn's "Holy Experiment" and in Rothbard's 4-volume history of the Colonial period, Conceived in Liberty.

[danberkeley]

How do you enforce contracts in anarchy?

With force.


Explain this furthur to me... where does the arbitration power come from?
What if I refuse to recognize your arbitor?

What if i refuse to recognize any US government as arbitor?


without contract law you can't have a thriving economy.

Therefore, we need the state?

What came first, man or the state? If man came first, how was the state created? If people agreed to form a government and, therefore, the agreement existed and had to be agreed to before the government was created, who/what will enforce or arbitrate that agreement, if there is ever a dispute over the agreement?

[torchbearer]

With force.



What if i refuse to recognize the any US government as arbitor?



Therefore, we need the state?

What came first, man or the state? If man came first, how was the state created? If people agreed to form a government and, therefore, the agreement existed before and had to be agreed to before the government was created, who/what will enforce that agreement?

when you say the state, Do you mean a big over-bearing central government?
Or a minimal government whose sole purpose is to protect life and property from fraud and abuse?
What part of mob rule and law of the jungle don't you understand?
You want anarchy?
What is yours will be mine because I have more guys with more guns.
Sounds lovely, doesn't it?

[tremendoustie]

when you say the state, Do you mean a big over-bearing central government?
Or a minimal government whose sole purpose is to protect life and property from fraud and abuse?
What part of mob rule and law of the jungle don't you understand?
You want anarchy?
What is yours will be mine because I have more guys with more guns.
Sounds lovely, doesn't it?

Government that protects life and property from fraud and abuse is great. The question is, how do you finance it. And if the answer is through the initiation of violence, I want no part of it.

The majority of people want to be protected against fraud and abuse, not to instigate it against others. That is why we do not have politicians getting elected to end laws against purse snatching and muggings.

For that same reason, groups who protect the rights of people will always have more numbers, money, and power, than looting bands.

Of course, unless a looting band convinces enough people that it is really protecting them, when it is doing anything but, which is what we have now ....

[danberkeley]

when you say the state, Do you mean a big over-bearing central government?
Or a minimal government whose sole purpose is to protect life and property from fraud and abuse?
What part of mob rule and law of the jungle don't you understand?
You want anarchy?
What is yours will be mine because I have more guys with more guns.
Sounds lovely, doesn't it?

Hey, I rephrased the question. Please answer the reprashed question. Thanks. And by government, I mean any form of government.


What part of mob rule and law of the jungle don't you understand?

Anarchy does not equal mob rule. Although, mob rule is certainly possible in anarchy and, likewise, under any government.


What is yours will be mine because I have more guys with more guns.
Sounds lovely, doesn't it?

Sounds like what we have under the current form of government.

Btw, I am A OK with voluntary governments.

[powerofreason]

An important point to make: When you do business with people in an anarchy you first need to check what their credit rating is. Likely many reputation ratings companies will spring up as people need to know whether the people they are doing business with are trustworthy. If you want to cheat someone out of money or break any contract people are going to not want to do business with you. And no one is required to. That could be a big problem, right? What if you had to have a reputation rating card from one of three companies scanned before you can enter wal-mart? And certainly you would be able to buy contract insurance for extra protection against people with only relatively good reputation. Insurance companies will have an interest in keeping crime/contract-breaking at bay. If there is a market for a good or service, someone will provide it. Its as simple as that.

There will be arbitration agencies too, of course, with professional arbitrators working as the servant of the customer. And no, you don't have to show up at arbitration. No one will force you. But will that look good in your reputation rating? A judgement may also be made against you in absentia, without your being there. If you do show up to the hearing and you don't like the resulting judgement, appeal it to your own arbitration company. Eventually a third may be needed to break a tie. If you don't show up to arbitration and your reputation ranking drops so low that no one allow you to drive on their roads, what will you do then? Will you live as an outlaw, in some disgusting corner of the city with other losers? Business hates criminals, and guess what you have in market anarchy? 100% business. And of course, under anarchy we don't have to live with the biggest criminal of all.... the State.

[torchbearer]

Hey, I rephrased the question. Please answer the reprashed question. Thanks. And by government, I mean any form of government.



Anarchy does not equal mob rule. Although, mob rule is certainly possible in anarchy and, likewise, under any government.



Sounds like what we have under the current form of government.

Btw, I am A OK with voluntary governments.

Anarchy will result in law of the jungle, might make right.
It isn't "just a possibility".

The anarchist of today is an over-reaction to the totalitarian government we have now.
And yes, a minimal government became that over-bearing government...but there was a period of reasonable government.

They should have never federalize the central government. Period.
The furthur your governing body is from the people... and the more power it has.. the more likely it will become tyrannical.
If the only governments that existed were at the local level, you'd have more influence and control over it to prevent such crap.

You can not have contracts in anarchy because the only law is the one of Might.
There are no rights in anarchy except for those who band together in large groups... and once in large groups... people will lead... and thus a state is born.

Anarchy is only a brief period between one form of government to another.

A tribe is a state. A family unit can be a state. But in all, their is a power structure and law.

[danberkeley]

You can not have contracts in anarchy because the only law is the one of Might... Anarchy is only a brief period between one form of government to another.


So how can there be a contract that forms a government? And if there cant be a contract that forms a government, how can that government be valid? And how can that government legitimately enforce contracts if it is invalid?

[torchbearer]

So how can there be a contract that forms a government? And if there cant be a contract that forms a government, how can that government be valid? And how can that government legitimately enforce contracts if it is invalid?

The court systems at the state and local level are still functional and can still enforce recourse.

[torchbearer]

If the federal government disappeared tomorrow, nothing would suffer, in fact, everyone would gain....
We still have other levels of government that function a lot better than the over-weight monolith with its foot on our throats.

[danberkeley]

The court systems at the state and local level are still functional and can still enforce recourse.

I am not speaking of the federal government, instead, I am speaking of all governments, including state and local. Anarchy doesnt only happen at federal level.

[powerofreason]

I say if the Somalians can improve under anarchy, we certainly can.

[torchbearer]

I not speaking of the federal government, instead, I am speaking of all governments, including state and local. Anarchy doesnt only happen at federal level.

I answered your question. Do you have another specific question?

[torchbearer]

I say if the Somalians can improve under anarchy, we certainly can.

Why haven't you moved to Somalia to experience all the greatness and opportunity that is now available to you?

[torchbearer]

By the way, Somalia is not anarchy... it is the new state after the brief anarchy.
Those guys with the most guns are the new state.

[powerofreason]

Governments are simply monopolies that protect their monopoly through violence and propaganda.

Monopolies = Bad services and bad prices

[torchbearer]

Governments are simply monopolies that protect their monopoly through violence and propaganda.

Monopolies = Bad services and bad prices

Unless you have competing governments.
That was suppose to be the idea.
50 competing state governments. If a government was crappy and tyranical, the states with the freer society would prosper and people would move to that state.
But when you have one size fits all central government, and no state can have its own laws that differ, you will get a monopoly.

[powerofreason]

By the way, Somalia is not anarchy... it is the new state after the brief anarchy.
Those guys with the most guns are the new state.

There is some kind of U.N. backed government in there now. The U.N./U.S. is the source of violence in Somalia. How do you explain the growth of Somalia's economy under anarchy. That shouldn't make sense to you.

[powerofreason]

Unless you have competing governments.
That was suppose to be the idea.
50 competing state governments. If a government was crappy and tyranical, the states with the freer society would prosper and people would move to that state.
But when you have one size fits all central government, and no state can have its own laws the differ, you will get a monopoly.

Thats a good step. The more governments, the better. I think it would be great to have competition between voluntary societies and minarchist ones to see which is better.

[torchbearer]

There is some kind of U.N. backed government in there now. The U.N./U.S. is the source of violence in Somalia. How do you explain the growth of Somalia's economy under anarchy. That shouldn't make sense to you.

The New State
Somalia's radicals poised to take over
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/1223/1229728474729.html


In this wonderful, new state after brief anarchy, they send their thugs to the local schools to forcefully recruit more soldiers and if you aren't muslim you either move or get killed.
Sounds great.

[danberkeley]

I answered your question. Do you have another specific question?

Torchbearer, the question also applied to state and local governments. But since you missed it:

So how can there be a contract that forms a government (including state and local)? And if there cant be a contract that forms a government (including state and local), how can that government (including state and local) be valid? And how can that government (including state and local) legitimately enforce contracts if it is invalid?

[torchbearer]

Thats a good step. The more governments, the better. I think it would be great to have competition between voluntary societies and minarchist ones to see which is better.

That was the idea... and why I said earlier, it was a mistake to federalize the central government.
The whole reason the southern states seceded.
We get it here.... still do.

[danberkeley]

Monopolies = Bad services and bad prices

Not necessarily.

[powerofreason]

The New State
Somalia's radicals poised to take over
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/1223/1229728474729.html


In this wonderful, new state after brief anarchy, they send their thugs to the local schools to forcefully recruit more soldiers and if you aren't muslim you either move or get killed.
Sounds great.

My point isn't that Somalia is a great place to live, only that they've done better under anarchy than they did with a state.

[powerofreason]

Not necessarily.

True. Theoretically you can have a monopoly that keeps its prices low and supplies a good product.

[torchbearer]

Torchbearer, the question also applied to state and local governments. But since you missed it:

So how can there be a contract that forms a government (including state and local)? And if there cant be a contract that forms a government (including state and local), how can that government (including state and local) be valid? And how can that government (including state and local) legitimately enforce contracts if it is invalid?

Originally, it would be those who owned the resources(means of production, arms, wealth, etc.) who would agree to the contract and set up an enforcement arm, some type of law enforcement among themselves.
If you are lucky, these people of great wealth will want a free society.
(this is how our constitution was made)

So, they will have the governing body under an agreed upon contract.
They will have an enforcement arm that works for that governing body,
and a judicial arm to decide guilt or innocence and recourse.

That is how it happens.

[torchbearer]

My point isn't that Somalia is a great place to live, only that they've done better under anarchy than they did with a state.

They don't have anarchy.

[powerofreason]

They don't have anarchy.

Thats why I used past tense.

[torchbearer]

Thats why I used past tense.

Their anarchy was brief, and the new deal they have now is not an improvement.
People live in fear of their lives if they don't submit to islam and the local powers.

[powerofreason]

Their anarchy was brief, and the new deal they have now is not an improvement.
People live in fear of their lives if they don't submit to islam and the local powers.

Can't say I disagree.

[tremendoustie]

Anarchy will result in law of the jungle, might make right.
It isn't "just a possibility".

Might always rules. Why do you think you're paying taxes now to fund international wars and corporate bailouts? Because it is moral?

As far as might making right, it never has, and never will. What is right is not determined by who has the guns, or which way the majority of Americans vote, or what the politicians and bankers do. It is determined by God, or the natural law, or whatever substitute you prefer.




The anarchist of today is an over-reaction to the totalitarian government we have now.
And yes, a minimal government became that over-bearing government...but there was a period of reasonable government.


Look, if I could sign on for constitutional government, and live under it for the rest of my life, I'd do it in a flash.

The question is this: Do you believe it is ever right to initiate violence? That is, if you are leaving me alone, and have not acted violently or used force or fraud against me in any way, would it be right for me to threaten violence against you, if you do not give your property to me?

Because that is how government is funded. If you're looking for "government" that is funded voluntarily, I am all for it. If you're interested in more detailed reasoning, and some ideas, see the most recent post on my almost never updated blog: www.ringingliberty.com.



They should have never federalize the central government. Period.
The furthur your governing body is from the people... and the more power it has.. the more likely it will become tyrannical.
If the only governments that existed were at the local level, you'd have more influence and control over it to prevent such crap.


Agreed 100%.



You can not have contracts in anarchy because the only law is the one of Might.
There are no rights in anarchy except for those who band together in large groups... and once in large groups... people will lead... and thus a state is born.


If one is free to leave such a group, I'm fine with it. If one is trapped in the group, and violence is then perpetrated against oneself for the support of the group and/or leader, then you've got a state, which I believe is immoral.

And of course contracts can be handled. Right now, the biggest baddest boy on the block, the government, enforces the contracts. In an anarchist system, the biggest baddest boy on the block, who receives voluntary funding from the members it protects, enforces the contract.




Anarchy is only a brief period between one form of government to another.

A tribe is a state. A family unit can be a state. But in all, their is a power structure and law.

Tribes and family units are great, as long as they don't commit violence against one another or others, and as long as one is always free to leave.

I do believe such an arrangement is possible, and could be stable. It would require enough of the populace to be against force, that the groups and organizations of those who only want to be protected against violence and theft are much stronger than those who want to perpetrate the violence and theft.

This is basically what we have now (minus the force and corruption). I could start a violent gang tomorrow, but I would soon be stopped by police, who have the support of the much greater number of people who wish to oppose violence.

The only difference is that the police would be funded voluntarily, rather than by force. The numbers of people looking for protection are still greater than those who wish to perpetrate violence, so the organizations looking to protect people will still be stronger.

[danberkeley]

Originally, it would be those who owned the resources(means of production, arms, wealth, etc.) who would agree to the contract and set up an enforcement arm, some type of law enforcement among themselves.
If you are lucky, these people of great wealth will want a free society.
(this is how our constitution was made)

So, they will have the governing body under an agreed upon contract.
They will have an enforcement arm that works for that governing body,
and a judicial arm to decide guilt or innocence and recourse.

That is how it happens.

So contracts CAN be created under anarchy and, therefore, CAN be enforced under anarchy and CAN be arbitrated under anarchy. Contract law does exist under anarachy and is not depedant on nor can it only arise under government.

[mport1]

First and foremost, anarchy is a moral position. What I really mean is, if anarchy really could not work, and really is just chaos anarchists would still be anarchists. Why? Its quite simple. The voluntaryist opposes aggressive violence. Period. End o' story. That being said, equally impressive utilitarian arguments for abolishing the state can be made.

Yes, even if anarchy would result in many more problems than our current situation (which I think is impossible), I would still be in favor of anarchy. That is because it is the only moral option.

[Andrew-Austin]

Just gunna randomly chip in thoughts.

Certainly everyone would agree that the more power is decentralized the better.

However to me it seems abolishing the Federal government and granting sovereignty to states would only be a small improvement. For example States could still have central banks and fiat money.

Say we all live in the country/nation of Texas, and the Texan government is oppressing us just as much as the US FED is. Would we not end up arguing for county rights and sovereignty from the Texas FED? Say we live in El Paso, and feel the far off officials in the capital of Austin are not representing us at all.

So what I'm saying is, does the nature of government necessarily improve at all just because it is restricted to a smaller land region? It still acquires power and funds through coercion does it not? Its simply shrinking the size of a Tyrannosaurus Rex to the size of a Velociraptor, that Dino is still going to end up eating you one way or another.

Edit: I'm laughing at my own post, fucking dinosaurs..

[torchbearer]

So contracts CAN be created under anarchy and, therefore, CAN be enforced under anarchy and CAN be arbitrated under anarchy. Contract law does exist under anarachy and is not depedant on nor can it only arise under government.

Its not longer anarchy once the contract is created.
As I stated earlier, anarchy is a brief period between two states.

[torchbearer]

Might always rules. Why do you think you're paying taxes now to fund international wars and corporate bailouts? Because it is moral?

As far as might making right, it never has, and never will. What is right is not determined by who has the guns, or which way the majority of Americans vote, or what the politicians and bankers do. It is determined by God, or the natural law, or whatever substitute you prefer.




Look, if I could sign on for constitutional government, and live under it for the rest of my life, I'd do it in a flash.

The question is this: Do you believe it is ever right to initiate violence? That is, if you are leaving me alone, and have not acted violently or used force or fraud against me in any way, would it be right for me to threaten violence against you, if you do not give your property to me?

Because that is how government is funded. If you're looking for "government" that is funded voluntarily, I am all for it. If you're interested in more detailed reasoning, and some ideas, see the most recent post on my almost never updated blog: www.ringingliberty.com.



Agreed 100%.



If one is free to leave such a group, I'm fine with it. If one is trapped in the group, and violence is then perpetrated against oneself for the support of the group and/or leader, then you've got a state, which I believe is immoral.

And of course contracts can be handled. Right now, the biggest baddest boy on the block, the government, enforces the contracts. In an anarchist system, the biggest baddest boy on the block, who receives voluntary funding by the members it protects, enforces the contract.



Tribes and family units are great, as long as they don't commit violence against one another or others, and as long as one is always free to leave.

I do believe such an arrangement is possible, and could be stable. It would require enough of the populace to be against force, that the groups and organizations of those who only want to be protected against violence and theft are much stronger than those who want to perpetrate the violence and theft.

This is basically what we have now (minus the force and corruption). I could start a violent gang tomorrow, but I would soon be stopped by police, who have the support of the much greater number of people who wish to oppose violence.

The only difference is that the police would be funded voluntarily, rather than by force. The numbers of people looking for protection are still greater than those who wish to perpetrate violence, so the organizations looking to protect people will still be stronger.

I don't pay taxes.

[mport1]

For those opposed to anarchy, please take the time to read these very short articles. I believed as you did as of very recently, but once you give it a chance and really look into it you may feel differently.

The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html

Caging the Devils: The Stateless Society and Violent Crime - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html

These Cages Are Only For Beasts - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux3.html


And if you like Stef's stuff, there is plenty more where that came from - http://www.freedomainradio.com

[torchbearer]

For those opposed to anarchy, please take the time to read these very short articles. I believed as you did as of very recently, but once you give it a chance and really look into it you may feel differently.

The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html

Caging the Devils: The Stateless Society and Violent Crime - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html

These Cages Are Only For Beasts - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux3.html


And if you like Stef's stuff, there is plenty more where that came from - http://www.freedomainradio.com

If every human being was like Stef, anarchy would work.
Since that isn't the case... see Somalia.

[tremendoustie]

I don't pay taxes.

Great to hear that that particular form of violence is not being perpetrated against you.

Do you consider it moral if it is perpetrated against others?

P.S. I don't mean to be overly antagonistic here, I consider you an ally, since we're both working for more liberty. And, as I say, constitutional government would be a lot more tolerable.

[danberkeley]

If every human being was like Stef, anarchy would work.
Since that isn't the case... see Somalia.

sure. but what makes you think that minarchy would "work"?

[torchbearer]

sure. but what makes you think that minarchy would "work"?

I'm not sure it would work.... has it been tried?
I'm up for picking one of the 50 states and trying it out.

[mport1]

If every human being was like Stef, anarchy would work.
Since that isn't the case... see Somalia.

As stated previously, Somalia is not in a state of anarchy. However, in its current situation, there have been drastic improvements in the country.

Anarchy works precisely because all people are not good and virtuous and that is major reason why the state will always fail.

[tremendoustie]

If every human being was like Stef, anarchy would work.
Since that isn't the case... see Somalia.

The discussion of the practical feasibility of anarchy is interesting (I believe it to be quite feasible).

The first question, though, is this: Do you believe it is right to threaten violence against someone if they don't give you their money.

Because if the answer is no, then an alternative must be found.

[danberkeley]

I'm not sure it would work.... has it been tried?
I'm up for picking one of the 50 states and trying it out.

That is what the Constitution established.

[torchbearer]

Great to hear that that particular form of violence is not being perpetrated against you.

Do you consider it moral if it is perpetrated against others?

P.S. I don't mean to be overly antagonistic here, I consider you an ally, since we're both working for more liberty. And, as I say, constitutional government would be a lot more tolerable.

I enjoy the debate... and unlike the guys on the religious threads, I don't take it personal. Its just ideas...
This is how we sharpen what we know.
I consider you guys great whetstones... (symbolically of course)

Force really isn't moral unless its in self defense.
The only just purpose of a government (which is force), is when it is used to protect the rights, property, and life of its people.

That is why I can't pay taxes... I'd be participating in unjust use of force.

[torchbearer]

That is what the Constitution established.

well, I'd say the articles of confederation would have been "closer" to the minarchist.
But i'd like to see that type of government implemented on a state level.

[tremendoustie]

I enjoy the debate... and unlike the guys on the religious threads, I don't take it personal. Its just ideas...
This is how we sharpen what we know.
I consider you guys great whetstones... (symbolically of course)

Force really isn't moral unless its in self defense.
The only just purpose of a government (which is force), is when it is used to protect the rights, property, and life of its people.

That is why I can't pay taxes... I'd be participating in unjust use of force.

I agree with your statement precisely: Force really isn't moral unless its in self defense.

Now, tax collection is backed by force. And, tax collection is not self defense. This is precisely my problem with the state. How do you reconcile this?

If the state could be funded voluntarily, I would absolutely support a government as you describe - to protect the rights, property, and life of its people. No doubt in an anarchist system I would also support an organization like this.

Sidepoint: I think it's admirable that you take a principled stand against taxes -- I'd do so if I thought I could avoid jail -- how do you?

[torchbearer]

I agree with your statement precisely: Force really isn't moral unless its in self defense.

Now, tax collection is backed by force. And, tax collection is not self defense. This is precisely my problem with the state.


If government was providing you with a "just" defense against mobs( a self-defense in protection of my self and property), I would voluntarily give it money.
Also, you can have user taxes. Those are voluntary because you don't pay it unless you use it.
Government can exist in a just/minimal state without forced taxation.


Sidepoint: I think it's admirable that you take a principled stand against taxes -- I'd do so if I thought I could avoid jail -- how do you?

My rifles, my lack of fear, and my willingness to die for my principles keeps me free from jail.

[tremendoustie]

If government was providing you with a "just" defense against mobs( a self-defense in protection of my self and property), I would voluntarily give it money.
Also, you can have user taxes. Those are voluntary because you don't pay it unless you use it.
Government can exist in a just/minimal state without forced taxation.


Then, I agree 100% with your conception of government. I'll wager that there are many here, who call themselves anarchists, who also agree with you. I suppose it depends on how you define government -- I think to many here the initiation of violence is the defining characteristic.



My rifles, my lack of fear, and my willingness to die for my principles keeps me free from jail.

Wow, best of luck to you. I am not currently in a situation where I could do that, and I guess I'm picking other ways of fighting for the time being, but I support you standing up for your rights.

[torchbearer]

Then, I agree 100% with your conception of government. I'll wager that there are many here, who call themselves anarchists, who also agree with you. I suppose it depends on how you define government -- I think to many here the initiation of violence is the defining characteristic.



Wow, best of luck to you. I am not currently in a situation where I could do that, and I guess I'm picking other ways of fighting for the time being, but I support you standing up for your rights.

That is why I believe most anarchist are an over-reaction to the overbearing totalitarian state we suffer under now.
And by definition, anarchy is no government. And this is as dangerous as a totalitarian one...
The idea is to get as close to it as possible with protection from the downsides of anarchy.
Now, minimal government can only exist at more local levels... i believe, by its very definition.
And any government beyond that is toying with fate and the power to become tyranical.
The only purpose of a central government of our states is to provide for a common defense against foreign invasion. That is it.

[tremendoustie]

That is why I believe most anarchist are an over-reaction to the overbearing totalitarian state we suffer under now.
And by definition, anarchy is no government. And this is as dangerous as a totalitarian one...
The idea is to get as close to it as possible with protection from the downsides of anarchy.
Now, minimal government can only exist at more local levels... i believe, by its very definition.
And any government beyond that is toying with fate and the power to become tyranical.
The only purpose of a central government of our states is to provide for a common defense against foreign invasion. That is it.

Then, how do you define government? What is the key difference between a government, and a private organization?

[Scofield]

Having spoken to many, many people who don't think like we do...I am afraid nothing will change until we are all hurled off into the concentration camps, ala Nazi Germany.

People don't want Liberty, they want safety. As long as they feel safe, they are fine with anything. Nor do people really care about property rights, as property rights can lead to trouble..and trouble is not what people want.

If your neighbor likes to play music loud, call the cops. Don't bother asking them to stop or trying to level with them. Just call the cops and let them deal with it, regardless of the fact that your neighbor owns his property and should be able to do whatever the hell he wants on it (unless he's killing people in his basement, or hurling grenades from his roof into your window, etc...When he's infringing on other's rights). Just call the cops, and let all moral responsibility go out the window.

I hate this country. I hate my countrymen. We are fighting for a lost cause. I've come to grips with it, sad but true.

I still, at times, feel like we can change things. But in reality, it's going to take death on the streets via the hands of the government before we ever get the opportunity to regain our freedom.

[danberkeley]

well, I'd say the articles of confederation would have been "closer" to the minarchist.
But i'd like to see that type of government implemented on a state level.

I'll take minarchy over what we've got now.

[danberkeley]

Then, how do you define government? What is the key difference between a government, and a private organization?

"For if the bulk of the public were really convinced of the illegitimacy of the State, if it were convinced that the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large, then the State would soon collapse to take on no more status or breadth of existence than another Mafia gang." Murray N. Rothbard here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard160.html)

[torchbearer]

Then, how do you define government? What is the key difference between a government, and a private organization?

A just government is a ruling body who derives its power solely from the governed, restricted to use of force only as self-defense.

A tyrannical government is no different from a private organization because it has a handful(or one) owner(s), and it is only controlled by its owners to benefit its owners.

A private organization is only to the benefit of those in the organization. And is exclusive.
Kinda like our current government.
A mafia.

[torchbearer]

"For if the bulk of the public were really convinced of the illegitimacy of the State, if it were convinced that the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large, then the State would soon collapse to take on no more status or breadth of existence than another Mafia gang." Murray N. Rothbard here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard160.html)

whoa... i think i just said something similar to that...

[danberkeley]

whoa... i think i just said something similar to that...

If a minarchy were to exist, it would hve to be voluntary, otherwise, it would be nothing more than a gang of criminals writ large. You can't impose a government upon someone to enforce contracts, arbitrate, provide defense, etc., if it's very actions violate the rights of the individuals.

[tremendoustie]

A just government is a ruling body who derives its power solely from the governed, restricted to use of force only as self-defense.

A tyrannical government is no different from a private organization because it has a handful(or one) owner(s), and it is only controlled by its owners to benefit its owners.

A private organization is only to the benefit of those in the organization. And is exclusive.
Kinda like our current government.
A mafia.

So are you saying the key difference is, government as you describe it would provide services to everyone, even if they did not pay into the system, whereas, if it only provided services to those who paid into it, it would be considered private?

[torchbearer]

If a minarchy were to exist, it would hve to be voluntary, otherwise, it would be nothing more than a gang of criminals writ large. You can't impose a government upon someone to enforce contracts, arbitrate, provide defense, etc., if it's very actions violate the rights of the individuals.

That is why I stated earlier that just government would have to be more local.(though some may argue it up to a state level)
As in, you choose to live in the domain of the government, or you choose to live in the wild... or some other group... etc.

[torchbearer]

So are you saying the key difference is, government as you describe it would provide services to everyone, even if they did not pay into the system, whereas, if it only provided services to those who paid into it, it would be considered private?

Services are provided to those who live in its domain. The city limits...etc.
Whether you helped pay for the cops or not, they'd still be there to help you... but you run the risk of not having police if you didn't pitch in...

Its sorta like this... I have the knowledge and ability to steal any software I want to use.... any.
Then why do I buy the software I find useful?
Because if I don't, I know the software company may not survive to support and make more software.
I can't rely on other people to support my publishers if I don't...

So-, people stop paying for their law enforcement... and then they don't have but one cop left, but then... they start getting shit stolen from their property... they learn... hmm, it may be in my interest to support this program are my shit will keep getting stolen.

Thus, the government can only be what is productive... because the taxes will be voluntary.
If its a program no one wants, it goes away.

Our idea of supporting government would be completely different if it was voluntary.

[tremendoustie]

Services are provided to those who live in its domain. The city limits...etc.
Whether you helped pay for the cops or not, they'd still be there to help you... but you run the risk of not having police if you didn't pitch in...

Its sorta like this... I have the knowledge and ability to steal any software I want to use.... any.
Then why do I buy the software I find useful?
Because if I don't, I know the software company may not survive to support and make more software.
I can't rely on other people to support my publishers if I don't...

So-, people stop paying for their law enforcement... and then they don't have but one cop left, but then... they start getting shit stolen from their property... they learn... hmm, it may be in my interest to support this program are my shit will keep getting stolen.

Thus, the government can only be what is productive... because the taxes will be voluntary.
If its a program no one wants, it goes away.

Our idea of supporting government would be completely different if it was voluntary.

Sure, that sounds great, although I think it might be optimistic -- it seems like there might be freeloaders who don't give anything because they'll get protection anyway.

You're right that this would only have a chance of working at a very local level. I think almost all would donate to help protect their duplex, most would donate to protect their apartment block or small village, few would donate to protect their large city, and almost no one would donate to protect their state -- assuming they personally get protection whether they pay or not.

I think there might have to be some payments required in exchange for services, at least for those who can afford it. That is, if you can afford to pay for police, but you don't, you don't get their protection.

I guess we could see how it plays out, but any voluntary system is a-ok with me.

[Andrew-Austin]

A just government is a ruling body who derives its power solely from the governed, restricted to use of force only as self-defense.



Looking at the first half of that sentence, it seems 'the governed' can just be a simple majority even at the local level, and thus the majority can trample over the rights of everyone else.

[danberkeley]

That is why I stated earlier that just government would have to be more local.(though some may argue it up to a state level)
As in, you choose to live in the domain of the government, or you choose to live in the wild... or some other group... etc.

Yes. The local government has to be voluntary too. It can't be, "hey, you live on our block. These are the rules."

[torchbearer]

Looking at the first half of that sentence, it seems 'the governed' can just be a simple majority even at the local level, and thus the majority can trample over the rights of everyone else.

yet, you forgot the part where force can only be used in self-defense... meaning, i can't envoke force by a majority vote to take your property... etc.

[torchbearer]

Yes. The local government has to be voluntary too. It can't be, "hey, you live on our block. These are the rules."

just government isn't there to impose rules, but to protect rights, property and life.
until the general population gets that... we are doomed.

[Andrew-Austin]

yet, you forgot the part where force can only be used in self-defense... meaning, i can't invoke force by a majority vote to take your property.

I saw that, its just such a definition of government seems Utopian.

Say a local county becomes its own sovereign government, this county is fairly big and very diverse. At first this government starts out minarchist to the core, and their constitution says that elected representatives and government officials are restricted to providing only the judiciary, police dept, etc. But this being a very diverse county, as perceived problems arise, representatives start promising to address those problems (maybe their seeking more power maybe not) by transcending the bounds of the constitution and taxing everyone to provide some service to a majority group. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but this scenario seems extremely likely.

[torchbearer]

I saw that, its just such a definition of government seems Utopian.

Its actually very simple.
View government as deadly force, and it makes more sense.

[Andrew-Austin]

Its actually very simple.
View government as deadly force, and it makes more sense.

What?

I said its Utopian to expect a local government under any conditions or constitution, to stick solely to the realm of providing for defense. Thus the minority would eventually be taxed to meet the majority's special aims. How does that address my grievance? Of course you could just say 'well the minority if it feels exploited can move to another county' but...

[tremendoustie]

What?

I said its Utopian to expect a local government under any conditions or constitution, to stick solely to the realm of providing for defense. Thus the minority would eventually be taxed to meet the majority's special aims. How does that address my grievance? Of course you could just say 'well the minority if it feels exploited can move to another county' but...

Hopefully the minority is well armed, I suppose.

Look, no system of government is going to protect against an immoral populace set upon plundering their fellow man. All we can do is work for a government that isn't evil itself. You are saying that inevitably liberty yields to tyranny. Perhaps this is true, but even if it is, we must work to restore liberty.

If you are looking for a magical system that maintains liberty despite an immoral, greedy, and violent populace, you are looking for what never has been and never will be.

[torchbearer]

What?

I said its Utopian to expect a local government under any conditions or constitution, to stick solely to the realm of providing for defense. Thus the minority would eventually be taxed to meet the majority's special aims. How does that address my grievance? Of course you could just say 'well the minority if it feels exploited can move to another county' but...

I misunderstood what information you were wanting... more of a miscommunication.
But yeah, with competing governments, being only on the local level... tyranny is easy to escape.... simply move.

Paulville sounds like a nice place, i might move there.
I heard the people there really respect property rights.

[RevolutionSD]

I'm glad to see this topic I started is a HOT one.

I personally don't think Schiff is a full anarchist, although he should be. His dad is rotting in jail for committing NO CRIME and for harming NOBODY.

Minarchism is a pipe dream. I'm very happy to have a place (RPF) to discuss these topics. Before 2007 I was a minarchist, and jumped on the RP campaign hardcore. During the campaign I met some anarchists, read Complete Liberty (http://completeliberty.com), read a couple of Molyneux's books and listened to several of his podcasts, and saw what happened in the election- and came to the conclusion that we absolutely need to get rid of government.

Like I said, it's a cancer, and you don't get rid of cancer by shrinking it, or just taking some of it out.

If you are a minarchist, I challenge you to seriously contemplate the idea that there is even one shred of virtue in monopolizing force by one group and using it against another. Is violence virtuous, even if it's a only a small amount of violence?

[Andrew-Austin]

Hopefully the minority is well armed, I suppose.

Look, no system of government is going to protect against an immoral populace set upon plundering their fellow man. All we can do is work for a government that isn't evil itself. You are saying that inevitably liberty yields to tyranny. Perhaps this is true, but even if it is, we must work to restore liberty.

If you are looking for a magical system that maintains liberty despite an immoral, greedy, and violent populace, you are looking for what never has been and never will be.

No I had my anarcho-capitalist hat on, and was postulating that government leads to tyranny. I'm just arguing for the sake of discussion really, and yeah I'd take a local minarchy in a flash after today's shit.

But back to discussion, 100% pure liberty to me it seems would mean no state, anarcho-capitalism. That the free market provide for police and judiciary as opposed to a minarchical government providing it. Whether this is Utopian or not I won't pretend to be sure. However the question still stands whether a local minarchy could keep within its constitutional bounds for very long w/o eventually violating individual rights. In fact, it seems unlikely that 100% of a citizenship would consent to funding the functions of a minarchical government in the first place.



Paulville sounds like a nice place, I might move there.
I heard the people there really respect property rights

Paulville would totally pwn Marxtown. lol

[Brassmouth]

Since no one bothered to respond to my challenge to provide me with one instance of a State not eventually enslaving it's people, I'll assume you are all aware that "minarchy" (and yes, late 18th and 19th century US was relatively minarchist) does not work. The State expands and engulfs it host society. This is a historically-proven fact.

Also, anyone who thinks Somalia is anarcho-capitalism is retarded. They operate in very collectivist clan-based societies there, and the UN has been inciting violence for years to impose a government on the people. Even despite all that, however, the free market is improving the lives of the Somali in all ways it can.

[torchbearer]

Since no one bothered to respond to my challenge to provide me with one instance of a State not eventually enslaving it's people, I'll assume you are all aware that "minarchy" (and yes, late 18th and 19th century US was relatively minarchist) does not work. The State expands and engulfs it host society. This is a historically-proven fact.

Also, anyone who thinks Somalia is anarcho-capitalism is retarded. They operate in very collectivist clan-based societies there, and the UN has been inciting violence for years to impose a government on the people. Even despite all that, however, the free market is improving the lives of the Somali in all ways it can.

show me an anarchy that didn't eventually evolve into a tyranny.
oops.

[danberkeley]

show me an anarchy that didn't eventually evolve into a tyranny.
oops.

Show me any government that did not evolve into tyranny. :D

[Brassmouth]

show me an anarchy that didn't eventually evolve into a tyranny.
oops.

First, your question admits that government is tyranny. OOPS.

To the point, the existence of the State as an institution has prevented anarchy from flourishing, as I pointed out in the Somalia example. The State uses violence to suppress the anarchy and dominate the people. Which is why I argue that anarchy can only arise from philosophical enlightenment.

And this is a justification for the State, how?

[powerofreason]

The Rule of Law without the State

Daily Article by Spencer Heath MacCallum | Posted on 9/12/2007 12:00:00 AM

Were there such a category, Somalia would hold a place in Guinness World Records as the country with the longest absence of a functioning central government. When the Somalis dismantled their government in 1991 and returned to their precolonial political status, the expectation was that chaos would result — and that, of course, would be the politically correct thing to expect.

Imagine if it were otherwise. Imagine any part of the globe not being dominated by a central government and the people there surviving, even prospering. If such were to happen and the idea spread to other parts of Africa or other parts of the world, the mystique of the necessity of the state might be irreparably damaged, and many politicians and bureaucrats might find themselves walking about looking for work.

If the expectation was that Somalia would plunge into an abyss of chaos, what is the reality? A number of recent studies address this question, including one by economist Peter Leeson drawing on statistical data from the United Nations Development Project, World Bank, CIA, and World Health Organization. Comparing the last five years under the central government (1985–1990) with the most recent five years of anarchy (2000–2005), Leeson finds these welfare changes:

* Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse?
* Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent.
* Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4.
* Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none.
* Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9.
* Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100.
* Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26.
* Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8.
* Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2.
* Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5.
* Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9.
* TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7.
* Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600.

Another even more comprehensive study published last year by Benjamin Powell of the Independent Institute, concludes: "We find that Somalia's living standards have improved generally … not just in absolute terms, but also relative to other African countries since the collapse of the Somali central government."

Somalia's pastoral economy is now stronger than that of either neighboring Kenya or Ethiopia. It is the largest exporter of livestock of any East African country. Telecommunications have burgeoned in Somalia; a call from a mobile phone is cheaper in Somalia than anywhere else in Africa. A small number of international investors are finding that the level of security of property and contract in Somalia warrants doing business there. Among these companies are Dole, BBC, the courier DHL, British Airways, General Motors, and Coca Cola, which recently opened a large bottling plant in Mogadishu. A 5-star Ambassador Hotel is operating in Hargeisa, and three new universities are fully functional: Amoud University (1997) in Borama, and Mogadishu University (1997), and University of Benadir (2002) in Mogadishu.

The Call to "Establish Democracy"

All of this is terribly politically incorrect for the reason I suggested. Consequently, the United Nations has by now spent well over two billion dollars attempting to re-establish a central government in Somalia. But here is the irony: it is the presence of the United Nations that has caused virtually all of the turbulence we have seen in Somalia. Let me explain why this is the case.

Like most of precolonial Africa, Somalia is traditionally a stateless society. When the colonial powers withdrew, in order to better serve their purposes, they hastily trained local people and set up European-style governments in their place. These were supposed to be democratic. But they soon devolved into brutal dictatorships.

Democracy is unworkable in Africa for several reasons. The first thing that voting does is to divide a population into two groups — a group that rules and a group that is ruled. This is completely at variance with Somali tradition. Second, if democracy is to work, it depends in theory, at least, upon a populace that will vote on issues. But in a kinship society such as Somalia, voting takes place not on the merit of issues but along group lines; one votes according to one's clan affiliation. Since the ethic of kinship requires loyalty to one's fellow clansmen, the winners use the power of government to benefit their own members, which means exploitation of the members of other clans. Consequently when there exists a governmental apparatus with its awesome powers of taxation and police and judicial monopoly, the interests of the clans conflict. Some clan will control that apparatus. To avoid being exploited by other clans, each must attempt to be that controlling clan.

The turmoil in Somalia consists in the clans maneuvering to position themselves to control the government whenever it might come into being, and this has been exacerbated by the governments of the world, especially the United States, keeping alive the expectation that a government will soon be established and supplying arms to whoever seems at present most likely to be able to "bring democracy" to Somalia. The "warlord" phenomenon refers to clan and independent militias, often including leftovers of the former central government, who promise to establish a government under the control of their own clan. They often operate outside the control of the traditional elders and sometimes in opposition to them.

Hence the most violent years in Somalia were the years following 1991 when the United Nations was physically present, attempting to impose a central government. When the United Nations withdrew in 1995, the expectation of a future central government began to recede, and things began to stabilize. But the United Nations continued it efforts to re-establish a government through a series of some sixteen failed "peace conferences." In 2000 it set up a straw government, the Transitional National Government (TNG). However, not only did the northern Somali clans not recognize the TNG, it was unable to control its intended capital city of Mogadishu. Today a combined "peace-keeping mission" of United States–backed troops from Ethiopia, Somalia's traditional enemy, and Uganda under the aegis of the African Union is in Mogadishu attempting to prop up the TNG and secure its control over the rest of Somalia. Violence soars.

The situation is curiously like an event in Greek mythology. The gods on Mt. Olympus were enjoying a festive party, to which, understandably, they had not invited Eris, the goddess of discord. Eris, just as understandably, took the matter personally. She had the blacksmith Hephaestus fashion a golden apple, on which was written καλλιστι — "To the fairest." Then she opened the door a crack and rolled the golden apple into the festive hall. In no time at all, the gods were fighting over who should have the apple. The golden apple in Somalia is the expectation that there will soon be a central government. As long as there is that expectation, the clans must fight over who will control it.

Somalia and the Rule of Law

Now, I've gone this far without telling you much about Somalia. It's the Horn of Africa, that part of northeast Africa that juts out into the Indian Ocean just below the Arabian Peninsula. The Somali culture area includes all of the Horn and is home to some 11.5 million people. The colonial powers arbitrarily fragmented this culture area so that today parts of it fall under the jurisdiction of Kenya in the south, some in Ethiopia in the west, and some in Djibouti in the north. The remainder along the coast is now without a working government.

What these people have in common, even more than similar language, lifestyle, and physical character is a body of customary law, the Xeer, which differs from clan to clan in nonessential ways such as founding myths but is remarkably uniform with respect to its provision for the protection of persons and property. The Xeer provides a rule of law — customary law, that is — permitting safe travel, trade, marriage, and so forth throughout the region. The Xeer is most intact in the north of Somalia, which was under British rule; in the south, the Italians tried to eradicate it. Nonetheless, it survives to a significant degree everywhere, even in the urban areas, and is virtually unaffected in rural Somalia.

The Xeer is the secret to the whole perplexing question of Somalia's success without a central government, since it provides an authentic rule of law to support trade and economic development. Fortunately, we know something about the Xeer because of Michael van Notten, a Dutch lawyer who in the early 1990s married into the Samaron Clan in the northwest of Somalia, the fifth largest of the Somali clans, and lived with them for the last twelve years of his life. He took full advantage of that opportunity to research the Xeer. The result was his pioneering study, The Law of the Somalis (Red Sea Press, 2005). Van Notten died when his manuscript was half finished. Fortunately, he had largely completed assembling the ethnographic material. In his will, he asked that I edit and complete the manuscript for publication. The task ahead is to see the work translated into Somali.

Highlights of the Xeer

There is time in this short talk to give you only some of the highlights of the Xeer. First, law and, consequently, crime are defined in terms of property rights. The law is compensatory rather than punitive. Because property right requires compensation, rather than punishment, there is no imprisonment, and fines are rare. Such fines as might be imposed seldom exceed the amount of compensation and are not payable to any court or government, but directly to the victim. A fine might be in order when, for example, the killing of a camel was deliberate and premeditated, in which case the victim receives not one but two camels.

Fines are used in another interesting way. It is expected that a prominent public figure such as a religious or political dignitary or a policeman or a judge should lead an exemplary life. If he violates the law, he pays double what would be required of an ordinary person. Also, it should be noted, since the law and crime are defined in terms of property rights, the Xeer is unequivocal in its opposition to any form of taxation.

Second, in order to assure that compensation will be forthcoming even in cases where the perpetrator is a child, or penniless, or crazy, or has fled abroad, the Xeer requires that every person be fully insured against any liability he might incur under the law. If an individual cannot make the required payment, a designated group of his kin is responsible. Van Notten describes in an interesting way how this happens:

A person who violates someone's rights and is unable to pay the compensation himself notifies his family, who then pays on his behalf. From an emotional point of view, this notification is a painful procedure, since no family member will miss the opportunity to tell the wrongdoer how vicious or stupid he was. Also, they will ask assurances that he will be more careful in the future. Indeed, all those who must pay for the wrongdoings of a family member will thereafter keep an eye on him and try to intervene before he incurs another liability. They will no longer, for example, allow him to keep or bear a weapon. While on other continents the re-education of criminals is typically a task of the government, in Somalia it is the responsibility of the family.

If the family tires of bailing out a repeat offender, they can disown him, in which case he becomes an outlaw. Not being insured, he forfeits all protection under the law and, for his safety, must leave the country.

Customary law is similar in this and many other respects throughout the world. An instance is told in the founding legend of my own Clan MacCallum in Scotland. The founder of the Clan supposedly was exiled 1,500 years ago from Ireland because he was a hothead whom his family disowned for embroiling them in fights. In the loneliness of his exile on the North Sea, he became a man of peace. He couldn't return to Ireland, as he was no longer under protection of the law and could have been killed with impunity. So he went instead to Scotland and there founded our clan.

A third point about the Xeer is that there is no monopoly of police or judicial services. Anyone is free to serve in those capacities as long as he is not at the same time a religious or political dignitary, since that would compromise the sharp separation of law, politics, and religion. Also, anyone performing in such a role is subject to the same laws as anyone else — and more so: if he violates the law, he must pay heavier damages or fines than would apply to anyone else. Public figures are expected to show exemplary conduct.

Fourth, there is no victimless crime. Only a victim or his family can initiate a court action. Where there is no victim to call a court into being, no court can form. No court can investigate on its own initiative any evidence of alleged misconduct.

Last, the court procedure is interesting. From birth, every Somali has his own judge who will sit on the court that will judge him should he transgress the law. That judge is his oday, the head of his extended family consisting of all males descended from the same great grandfather, together with their spouses and children. Several extended families make up a jilib, which is the group responsible for paying the blood price in the event a member kills someone of another jilib or clan. The oday, or judge, is chosen carefully, following weeks or months of deliberation by elders of the clan. He has no authority over the family but is chosen solely for his knowledge of human affairs and his wisdom, and he can lose his position if his decisions are not highly regarded in the community.

When an offense is committed, the offender goes first to his oday, who then forms a court with the oday of the plaintiff. If the two odays cannot resolve the matter, they form another court made up of odays representing additional families, jilibs, or clans. A virtue of each person knowing from birth who will be one of his judges, and vice versa, is that an oday knows each person in his extended family intimately and can observe and counsel him before what might seem to be a small problem escalates into a crime.

Once a court forms and accepts jurisdiction over a case, its first action is to appoint a recorder, who will repeat loudly during the hearing each important point made by the speakers. The court then announces when and where it will hear the case. When the court session opens, the court invites the plaintiff to state his case. The plaintiff has the right to appoint a representative to make the presentation on his behalf. During the presentation, the plaintiff has opportunity to confer with his family to make sure that he has not forgotten anything. When the plaintiff has finished, the court asks him to summarize his case and state his demands. Lastly, the court asks the defendant to present his defense and any counterclaims.

Then the court adjourns to deliberate on whether any witnesses should be heard. A disputed fact is admitted as evidence only when three witnesses have testified to its truth. The parties can also call in experts and character witnesses. If the victim has died or has been wounded, the court will instruct a religious dignitary to assess how the victim died or was wounded. These dignitaries assess injuries usually by applying the standards enumerated in the commentary of the twelfth-century Muslim scholar al-Nawawii's Minhaaj at-Talibiin. When the plaintiff has elaborated his case with witnesses and evidence, the defendant is given a chance to refute the plaintiff's charges, arguments, and evidence. It is not customary to cross-examine witnesses.

Finally, the court adjourns again to evaluate the evidence. If less than three witnesses support a fact, or if the witnesses contradict each other, the court will proceed to oath taking. There are several types of oaths. The simplest starts by the oath giver saying, "I swear by my virility." Alternatively, he can say, "I swear by Allah." A stronger oath is the so-called triple oath, in which he swears the same oath three times. A stronger oath yet is the one that is repeated 50 times. Also, there is the so-called divorce oath, in which the oath giver swears by his marriage(s). If it is later found out that he lied, his marriage(s) become null and void.

It should be noted that even when the plaintiff fails to convince the court of his case, the court will usually not rule in favor of the defendant until the latter has taken an oath of innocence.
$30

In a longer talk, I could discuss the role of police and enforcement of judgments, but this much should give some flavor of the legal system practiced by the Somalis. It provides an effective rule of law entirely without the backing of a government.

The Xeer takes its place among such great legal systems of the world as the Roman law, the English common law, the Law Merchant, and the Jewish traditional law (Halacha). It must be extremely old and is believed to have developed in the Horn of Africa. There is no evidence that it developed elsewhere or was greatly influenced by any foreign legal system. The fact that Somali legal terminology is practically devoid of loan words from foreign languages suggests that the Xeer is truly indigenous.

Michael van Notten's book describing this system of law deserves to be better known and widely read. It is the first study of any customary law to treat it not as a curiosity of the past, but as potentially instructive for a future free society. In his book, Van Notten lays out some practical applications to the world in which we find ourselves today, applications I haven't had time to touch on here. Whether or not the intervention of foreign governments, which has intensified with the refusal of Somalis to die or remain poor, will frustrate this potential, only time can tell.

I would like to end with a plea to help get this book into wider circulation.

If you are connected with any schools or colleges, please contact them. Many of them will find it highly appropriate. A review by a distinguished legal anthropologist on Amazon.com ends on this note:

"The readability and relative brevity of the text highly recommend The Law of the Somalis for classroom use. It fits comfortably alongside, and is a refreshing addition to, the scholarly tradition reflected in such classic ethnographic legal-political titles as, Tswana Law (I. Schapera), The Cheyenne Way (K. Llewellyn and E.A. Hoebel), and The Judicial Process among the Barotse (M. Gluckman)."

– Howard J. De Nike, J.D., Ph.D., Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico

[powerofreason]

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It

Daily Article by Yumi Kim | Posted on 2/21/2006 12:00:00 AM

Somalia is in the news again. Rival gangs are shooting each other, and why? The reason is always the same: the prospect that the weak-to-invisible transitional government in Mogadishu will become a real government with actual power.

The media invariably describe this prospect as a "hope." But it's a strange hope that is accompanied by violence and dread throughout the country. Somalia has done very well for itself in the 15 years since its government was eliminated. The future of peace and prosperity there depends in part on keeping one from forming.

As even the CIA factbook admits:

"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."

To understand more about the country without a government, turn to The Law of the Somalis, written by Michael van Notten (1933-2002) and edited by Spencer Heath MacCallum, sheds light on the little known Somali law, culture and economic situation. Somalia is often cited as an example of a stateless society where chaos is the "rule" and warlords are aplenty.

The BBC's country profile of Somalia sums up this view as widely publicized by the mainstream media: "Somalia has been without an effective central government since President Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991. Fighting between rival warlords and an inability to deal with famine and disease led to the deaths of up to one million people."

The first sentence is indeed true: when the president was driven out by opposing clans in 1991, the government disintegrated. The second sentence, however, depicts Somalia as a lawless country in disorder. As for disorder, Van Notten quotes authorities to the effect that Somalia's telecommunications are the best in Africa, its herding economy is stronger than that of either of its neighbors, Kenya or Ethiopia, and that since the demise of the central government, the Somali shilling has become far more stable in world currency markets, while exports have quintupled.

As for Somalia being lawless, Van Notten, a Dutch lawyer who married into the Samaron Clan and lived the last dozen years of his life with them, specifically challenges that portrayal. He explains that Somalia is a country based on customary law. The traditional Somali system of law and politics, he contends, is capable of maintaining a peaceful society and guiding the Somalis to prosperity. Moreover, efforts to re-establish a central government or impose democracy on the people are incompatible with the customary law.

Van Notten distinguishes between the four meanings of the word "law" — statutory, contractual, customary, and natural law. The common misunderstanding is that legitimate rules only come from formally established entities and that therefore a country without a legislature is lawless. Refuting that misunderstanding, van Notten explains that a perfectly orderly and peaceful country can exist when people respect property rights and honor their contracts. While natural laws denote peace, liberty, and friendly relations, statutory laws represent commands. Statutory laws reflect the preferences of legislators, who impose "morality" on those they govern and regulate their ability to voluntarily enter into contracts. This, according to van Notten, is wrong from the standpoint of both morality and law.

Customary laws develop in a country like Somalia in the absence of a central legislating body. Rules "emerge spontaneously as people go about their daily business and try to solve the problems that occasionally arise in it without upsetting the patterns of cooperation on which they so heavily depend" (Van Notten, 15: 2005). Van Notten contends that the Somali customary law closely follows the natural law and therefore should be preserved.

The extended family is the core of Somali society. Families descended from common great grandparent form a jilib, the basic independent jural unit, and a number of jilibs in turn form a clan. Each family, jilib, and clan has its own judge, whose role is to facilitate the handling of disputes by deciding where the liability lies and what compensation should be paid. For example if a man is murdered, the murderer's clan gives the victim's clan one hundred camels (the blood price). Verdicts are widely discussed, and a judge who does not base his decision on norms prevailing in the community is unlikely to be asked to settle further disputes. Thus while a judge may form his own principles, his customers will decide his competence as a judge.

The family of the successful plaintiff can resort to self-help to enforce a payment, or the court can order the men of the community to do so. Every clansman is insured by his jilib. For instance, if A violates B's right and it is held that A should pay compensation to B, A's jilib will provide the compensation. Hence the jilib functions as "a safety net, venture capital, protection, and insurance" (Van Notten, 74: 2005).

If a clan member constantly violates others' rights and his jilib repeatedly pays compensation, the jilib can expel him. On the other hand, there is nothing to stop someone from leaving his jilib and joining another, if it will have him, or setting up his own. A person without a jilib is unthinkable, an outlaw, because he is not insured against liabilities he might incur toward others. Hence he loses all protection of the law.

Decisions are enforced and oaths taken in ways that may seem unsophisticated or odd, yet they are the custom and must be respected. If, for instance, the defendant refuses to comply with the verdict without appealing his case to a higher court, he can be tied to a tree covered with black ants until he agrees. When evidence is sketchy or lacking, several types of oaths are available. A strong oath is one that is repeated fifty times. Another type is a divorce oath. If a man testifies under divorce oath and it is later found that his testimony was false, his marriage becomes null and void.

Independent extended families being the basic social and economic unit does have its weaknesses. While clansmen are under no obligation to share their wealth with other clans, they must share it to a significant extent within the clan. Van Notten notes this as a drawback and states that the "law makes clansmen somewhat a prisoner of their clan." Since individuals differ in their productivity, it is inevitable that some family members will benefit from more successful members. In addition, as a way of promoting internal cohesion, extended families may foment animosity against other families. Van Notten also writes that foreigners are not recognized under Somali law unless they marry into a clan or come under the protection of a Somali patron.

This has important economic implications. For example, because land cannot be sold outside the clan, foreigners would generally be prohibited from purchasing it. One way to work with this might be land leasing, which is possible under customary law. Somali elders suggested to Van Notten that a group of foreign investors could form their own 'clan' on a leased territory and develop it, say for a free port, on a land-lease basis.

An important discussion centers around democracy. In 1960, when the British and Italian colonizers withdrew from Somalia, they formed the government of the Republic of Somalia as a democratic entity. Nine years later, the country was under a dictatorship. Through these events, according to van Notten, many Somalis realized that they could return to their traditional form of governance founded on independent clans.

Nevertheless, since 1991, the United Nations has made efforts to promote the establishment of a democratic government in Somalia. Van Notten strongly argues that such government is incompatible with the Somali customary law, which prizes life, liberty, and property. He asserts that democracy is not even a viable option:

"When the electorate is composed of close-knit tribal, religious, linguistic or ethnic communities, the people invariably vote, not on the merits of any issue, but for the party of their own community. The community with the greatest numbers wins the election, and the minority parties then put rebellion and secession at the top of their political agenda. That is nothing but a recipe for chaos." (van Notten, 127; 2005)

Van Notten contends that the argument that a central government is a prerequisite for making treaties with foreign government agencies is flawed because the Somalis have long dealt with foreign governments and their agencies on a clan-by-clan basis. A common ministry of foreign affairs would pose a grave danger because it would undermine the customary law. He suggests that clans sharing a common interest could appoint a private company as their common agent. Van Notten and MacCallum further dispute that a central government is needed to provide "public" services. They propose the establishment of freeports, land-leasing, and commercial insurance companies. Certain sectors such as telecommunications have been thriving in Somalia's free market and government regulation could only hinder their growth.

Questions arise as to rampageous warlords when discussing a country without a central government. Van Notten explains that warlords exist because of the efforts to form a central government, not because of its absence:

"A democratic government has every power to exert dominion over people. To fend off the possibility of being dominated, each clan tries to capture the power of that government before it can become a threat. Those clans that didn't share in the spoils of political power would realize their chances of becoming part of the ruling alliance were nil. Therefore, they would rebel and try to secede. That would prompt the ruling clans to use every means to suppress these centrifugal forces… in the end all clans would fight with one another." (van Notten, 136; 2005)

He thus asserts that efforts by the United Nations are not only futile, but also harmful to the Somalis.

Van Notten calls for documentation of clan law systems to facilitate doing business with foreigners, especially, on a nationwide scale. He argues that by compiling all the major jurisprudence under Somali law, the customary law will more readily evolve into a coherent body of common law. But if each clan is only bound by its own rules and custom, and if the Somalis so far never felt the need for the "merger of clan law systems," why would compiling rules of all different clans be necessary? Moreover, it is unclear how such a task can effectively be undertaken when the customary law evolves constantly, and clans have a nomadic character.

The book does not contain information regarding the Somali presidential election in 2004, which took place in Kenya. Efforts to construct a formal government continue but they appear to be in vain, inspiring hope in UN bureaucrats and the news media, but only fear and loathing in Mogadishu and the rest of the country.

[RevolutionSD]

Great stuff on Somalia, thanks!! :)

[torchbearer]

First, your question admits that government is tyranny. OOPS.

To the point, the existence of the State as an institution has prevented anarchy from flourishing, as I pointed out in the Somalia example. The State uses violence to suppress the anarchy and dominate the people. Which is why I argue that anarchy can only arise from philosophical enlightenment.

And this is a justification for the State, how?

anarchy would by tyranny by the next night...
and like i've said several times.. anarchy would never exist in a constant state because some asshole and his buddies would use their greater numbers to enslave others.
Welcome to your brief period of anarchy before your next tyrannical government.
You people need to get out dream land.
It is as silly as Marxism.

Every person on this planet would have to be a clone of Stef for a society to exist without government. Nice dream.

[lodge939]

rofl, go live in Somalia then, anarchists. Your white touristy ass would get robbed on the first day.

[torchbearer]

rofl, go live in Somalia then, anarchists. Your white touristy ass would get robbed on the first day.

Or dragged through the streets behind a mob of people....

[tremendoustie]

anarchy would by tyranny by the next night...
and like i've said several times.. anarchy would never exist in a constant state because some asshole and his buddies would use their greater numbers to enslave others.
Welcome to your brief period of anarchy before your next tyrannical government.
You people need to get out dream land.
It is as silly as Marxism.

Every person on this planet would have to be a clone of Stef for a society to exist without government. Nice dream.

I don't understand why you think there's such a big difference between what you're proposing and anarchy. You said the main difference between a government and a private organization is that a government organization would provide protection even without payment (it would run on donations), whereas you would have to subscribe to get protection from a private organization (with perhaps exceptions for the very poor).

I don't see how this constitutes the difference between an orderly society that protects people's rights, and total chaos. It actually seems like a relatively minor difference to me ...

The word "anarchy" has some stigmas attached to it, many picture roving bands of violent thugs. Conversely, "government" often conveys ideas of stability and some sort of moral authority. But when you really get down to it, the proposals are almost the same exact thing, it's just semantics.

I mean, if there's one organization most everyone voluntarily subscribes to, or donates to, for protection, which provides a police force, courts, and jails, you could call it "private" or "government", but it'd be the same thing.

[torchbearer]

I don't understand why you think there's such a big difference between what you're proposing and anarchy. You said the main difference between a government and a private organization is that a government organization would provide protection even without payment (it would run on donations), whereas you would have to subscribe to get protection from a private organization (with perhaps exceptions for the very poor).

I don't see how this constitutes the difference between an orderly society that protects people's rights, and total chaos. It actually seems like a relatively minor difference to me ...

um, because the private organization you are talking about is a government, and under the right, CEO could become another form of fascism.
He just needs enough wealthy stock holders to agree, and you are another slave to another mafia.

[torchbearer]

The idea is to keep government local, and to have competing governments.
No centralized government (or private organization if you will)

[RevolutionSD]

rofl, go live in Somalia then, anarchists. Your white touristy ass would get robbed on the first day.

Why don't you read those posts on Somalia before ignorantly bashing us?

[tremendoustie]

um, because the private organization you are talking about is a government, and under the right, CEO could become another form of fascism.
He just needs enough wealthy stock holders to agree, and you are another slave to another mafia.

No, say it's a not for profit company. If you like, the CEO could be elected. What I'm looking for is a clear definition of the difference between "government" and "private", because it seems like we're arguing over nothing. It seems like all I'd need to do is slap the word "government" on my not for profit protection service that has elected leaders, and free service to the very poor, you'd be fine with it. I guess I'm saying it seems like nothing but semantics.

[literatim]

No, say it's a not for profit company. If you like, the CEO could be elected. What I'm looking for is a clear definition of the difference between "government" and "private", because it seems like we're arguing over nothing. It seems like all I'd need to do is slap the word "government" on my not for profit protection service that has elected leaders, and free service to the very poor, you'd be fine with it. I guess I'm saying it seems like nothing but semantics.

You don't think a private company can be a tyrannical government? It doesn't matter if it tries to make money or not from its inception. Give any organization enough power and it will use the power given to gain more power.

[tremendoustie]

You don't think a private company can be a tyrannical government? Give any organization enough power and it will use the power given to gain more power.

Sure, it can happen, with a private organization or with a government. What I am saying is, I don't see the difference between minarchism with a voluntary government, and anarchy. I'm not getting what the disagreement is about. As I say, it seems like semantics to me.

If it's not just semantics, then I'd like to know what the key, defining difference is between "private" organizations and "government" organizations, when they're both local, voluntary, and not for profit.

[literatim]

Sure, it can happen, with a private organization or with a government. What I am saying is, I don't see the difference between minarchism with a voluntary government, and anarchy. I'm not getting what the disagreement is about. As I say, it seems like semantics to me.

If it's not just semantics, then I'd like to know what the key, defining difference is between "private" organizations and "government" organizations, when they're both local, voluntary, and not for profit.

Who decides that such a company is not-for-profit? How would anyone be able to tell that the company isn't making profit off the people? Why would a non-profit company ever exist for such a role?

Who decides the laws? The company? Does the company judge the people who have broken their laws? So will there be a tribunal of hired employees deciding someone's fate instead of a jury of their peers?

Naturally, a company would cover more than one town and could easily build a strangling empire on the people. Rising companies could start sabotaging the other companies to gain a foothold in different market place. What happens when a single company gains enough power that it can simply claim ownership of the territory?

[tremendoustie]

Who decides that such a company is not-for-profit?

The citizens who found it and those who support it. The same people who decide your government is not for profit.



How would anyone be able to tell that the company isn't making profit off the people? Why would a non-profit company ever exist for such a role?


Because people might prefer a non-profit company in such a role, and choose to support it over competitors. And, how would anyone be able to tell that the government isn't making a profit off the people?



Who decides the laws? The company? Does the company judge the people who have broken their laws? So will there be a tribunal of hired employees deciding someone's fate instead of a jury of their peers?


No, jury of their peers would be fine. And, laws could be voted upon by the customers. Or, if preferred, the vote could be given to all people in a certain geographic area.



Naturally, a company would cover more than one town and could easily build a strangling empire on the people.

A government could also cover more than one town, and could easily build a strangling empire on the people. Or, either could be kept in check, with an alert, educated, and armed populace.


Rising companies could start sabotaging the other companies to gain a foothold in different market place. What happens when a single company gains enough power that it can simply claim ownership of the territory?
[/QUOTE]

Rising governments could start sabotaging other local governments, to gain a foothold in a different town. What happens when a single government gains enough power that it can simply claim ownership of the territory?

My main question is this: What defines a government vs. a private organization? What is the key difference? Because, I at least want to know what we're arguing about. So far, I don't see any difference at all. It seems like voluntary minarchists and anarchists are needlessly arguing over semantics.

[powerofreason]

I think the minarchists forget that libertarians are a small minority compared to people that want to loot each other through government. You're not going to convince lazy people that they no longer want handouts. And I'd say a private organization becomes a government when it demands that people use its service. A government is essentially a group of people who have a monopoly on providing certain arbitrarily selected goods and services, enforced through violence. The extent that this company can convince its customers not to want to blow their heads off is called "legitimacy" in political science. After anarchy is the norm, it will be very difficult for any one group of people calling themselves government to gain legitimacy.

[tremendoustie]

And I'd say a private organization becomes a government when it demands that people use its service. A government is essentially a group of people who have a monopoly on providing certain arbitrarily selected goods and services, enforced through violence.

See, now this is my idea of the definition of government -- the key is violence. If a government is voluntary, I haven't thought of it as government. It seems like some of these monarchists disagree - the thought is, there can be a voluntary government. So what I'm trying to understand is this: What is their definition of government, vs. a private organization?

I mean, if theirs is the definition of minarchy, I could just as well call myself a minarchist. If people aren't being coerced, I'm happy.

[torchbearer]

Sure, it can happen, with a private organization or with a government. What I am saying is, I don't see the difference between minarchism with a voluntary government, and anarchy. I'm not getting what the disagreement is about. As I say, it seems like semantics to me.

If it's not just semantics, then I'd like to know what the key, defining difference is between "private" organizations and "government" organizations, when they're both local, voluntary, and not for profit.

anarchy, in its purest form, would have no laws, because it would have no government. NO matter what name you want to use for government...
Government is a business organization.
If you want to run society with these organizations as arbting bodies, you are still a minarchist with a different idea of how to achieve your minimal government.
You are not an anarchist.

[tremendoustie]

anarchy, in its purest form, would have no laws, because it would have no government. NO matter what name you want to use for government...
Government is a business organization.
If you want to run society with these organizations as arbting bodies, you are still a minarchist with a different idea of how to achieve your minimal government.
You are not an anarchist.

Laws are simply those rules that the government organization chooses to enforce. Any protection agency would also have rules, the violation of which would invite prosecution -- would they not? What's the difference?

[torchbearer]

Laws are simply those rules that the government organization chooses to enforce. Any protection agency would also have rules, the violation of which would invite prosecution -- would they not? What's the difference?

none. that is what i'm saying. what you want is a government... just by another name.

[tremendoustie]

none. that is what i'm saying. what you want is a government... just by another name.

So then, what do anarchists want? As far as I know, anarchists accept the idea of agencies who offer protection from violence and theft, in exchange for a subscription fee of some kind.

[torchbearer]

So then, what do anarchists want? As far as I know, anarchists accept the idea of agencies who offer protection from violence and theft, in exchange for a subscription fee of some kind.

people who call themselves "anarchist" and say they want government by another name are mislabeling themselves.

[tremendoustie]

people who call themselves "anarchist" and say they want government by another name. They are mislabeling themselves.

What do true anarchists, who are not mislabeling themselves, want then? No such protection organizations, but just every individual for themselves, with somehow no voluntary association?

[torchbearer]

What do true anarchists, who are not mislabeling themselves, want then? No such protection organizations, but just every individual for themselves, with somehow no voluntary association?

Let's define the word anarchy... for someone who is an anarchist.. is someone who believes in a (dis)system of government called anarchy.

princeton dictionary defines anarchy as such:
(n) anarchy, lawlessness (a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government))
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=anarchy

[tremendoustie]

Let's define the word anarchy... for someone who is an anarchist.. is someone who believes in a (dis)system of government called anarchy.

princeton dictionary defines anarchy as such:
(n) anarchy, lawlessness (a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government))
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=anarchy

Well, I'm not for disorder, and I'm for laws, or some private equivalent of laws, so I guess I'm a minarchist ;).

But, it seems like princeton's definition doesn't really match what most people calling themselves anarchists think. I've read what a lot of anarchists say, and listened to a couple of those steff videos, or whatever his name is. Not once have I heard someone say they're for disorder and chaos ...

[torchbearer]

Well, I'm not for disorder, and I'm for laws, or some private equivalent of laws, so I guess I'm a minarchist ;).

But, it seems like princeton's definition doesn't really match what most people calling themselves anarchists think. I've read what a lot of anarchists say, and listened to a couple of those steff videos, or whatever his name is. Not once have I heard someone say they're for disorder and chaos ...

That is why they are mislabeling themselves.
They just have a different idea of how to achieve minarchy from other minarchist.
But its mostly semantic really.

[mport1]

Let's define the word anarchy... for someone who is an anarchist.. is someone who believes in a (dis)system of government called anarchy.

princeton dictionary defines anarchy as such:
(n) anarchy, lawlessness (a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government))
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=anarchy

That is what anarchy has come to mean in the minds of many people as of recently. However there are multiple definitions to the word.

Anarchy
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler

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

2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

Anarchism
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism


What we who label ourselves as anarchisst are referring to is the absence of a ruler and not the absence of rules or order.

[torchbearer]

That is what anarchy has come to mean in the minds of many people as of recently. However there are multiple definitions to the word.

Anarchy
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler

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

2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

Anarchism
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism


What we who label ourselves as anarchisst are referring to is the absence of a ruler and not the absence of rules or order.

You forgot the part in bold, which would rule out quasi-business governments too.

[danberkeley]

There slightly different definitions for anarchy.

From M-W.com (Merriam-Webster Online)


an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
Date: 1539
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
2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

The first definition being "absence of government".

[torchbearer]

What we who label ourselves as anarchisst are referring to is the absence of a ruler and not the absence of rules or order.

also, let me speak directly to this point.
There is never an absence of rulers.
This is why anarchy is short lived.
Everyone would have to voluntarily be good people like Stef, and all... 100% of the people would have to agree to have no ruler.
THis is why it is fantasy utopia.
There will always be an asshole and his gang.

[danberkeley]

There is never an absence of rulers.
This is why anarchy is short lived.


Those are contradictory statements. How can something never exist but also be short lived?


Everyone would have to voluntarily be good people like Stef, and all... 100% of the people would have to agree to have no ruler.
THis is why it is fantasy utopia.
There will always be an asshole and his gang.

How is this any different from minarchy or any other form of government you propose?

[torchbearer]

Those are contradictory statements. How can something never exist but also be short lived?

Never exist as a long term system of stable (being)
It exist for that microsecond or two between the fall of tyranny, and the time it takes for someone on this planet to think they should rule over others.

[torchbearer]

Those are contradictory statements. How can something never exist but also be short lived?



How is this any different from minarchy or any other form of government you propose?

because there are leaders... and there will be good ones and bads ones...
but they best odds of having a good one, is to have competing leaders.

[danberkeley]

Never exist as a long term system of stable (being)
It exist for that microsecond or two between the fall of tyranny, and the time it takes for someone on this planet to think they should rule over others.

There also arnt any governments that have lasted, in its same form, for more than a couple hundred years. Governments are also changing or "evolving", to use your term.

[torchbearer]

because there are leaders... and there will be good ones and bads ones...
but they best odds of having a good one, is to have competing leaders.

imagine each city competing for companies and residents...

edit: as the sole source of government. not having any layers on top of them.

[torchbearer]

There also arnt any governments that have lasted in its same form for more than a couple hundred years. Governments are also changing or "evolving", to use your term.

but they always exist long term.
Anarchy is maybe a fews days to weeks...
Society with leaders last decades

[torchbearer]

Actually, how long did it take for the coup to happen in Guinea?
From the time of the death of their ruler, until the next prick with his gang of thugs think they should be leaders now?

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-12-24-voa45.cfm

http://www.voanews.com/english/images/AFP-Guinea-coup-conakry-23Dec08-190.jpg
real world stuff.

[danberkeley]

because there are leaders... and there will be good ones and bads ones...

In anarchy, individuals are leaders of themselves. Why do we need someone to rule over us?


but they best odds of having a good one, is to have competing leaders

That's very utopian.

[tremendoustie]

That is what anarchy has come to mean in the minds of many people as of recently. However there are multiple definitions to the word.

Anarchy
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler

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

2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

Anarchism
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism


What we who label ourselves as anarchisst are referring to is the absence of a ruler and not the absence of rules or order.

Now, this is a definition I could get behind.

I really think it is semantics. Anarchists say yes, anarchy includes rules and organizations which protect people's rights. Minarchists say no, it cannot include those things, what you're talking about is minarchy.

But, we both want voluntary associations of people who protect their right not to be agressed against, so who in the heck cares what you call it if it's the same thing?

[torchbearer]

In anarchy, individuals are leaders of themselves. Why do we need someone to rule over us?



That's very utopian.

not really. its reasonable, and can happen. give slavery time to set in first.

You, in a world of individual leaders.
You don't have the man power as one person to protect your rights from a mob.
You have no rights if you can't protect them.
The is the defeciency of anarchism. There will always be people who find it advantagous to group together to commit crime.
In your idea, everyone has to be good.
In my idea, only some people have to be good.

[torchbearer]

In your idea, everyone has to be good.
In my idea, only some people have to be good.

Which one of the above is more likely to occur in our world today?
Everyone being good? Or just some people?

[tremendoustie]

not really. its reasonable, and can happen. give slavery time to set in first.

You, in a world of individual leaders.
You don't have the man power as one person to protect your rights from a mob.
You have no rights if you can't protect them.
The is the defeciency of anarchism. There will always be people who find it advantagous to group together to commit crime.
In your idea, everyone has to be good.
In my idea, only some people have to be good.

People can also group together to protect themselves. Please correct me if I am wrong, anarchists, but if voluntary organizations form that protect people from aggression, you would still consider this anarchy, no?

[danberkeley]

but they always exist long term.
Anarchy is maybe a fews days to weeks...
Society with leaders last decades

The "wild" west was very anarch-ish. But naturally, voluntary governments arose to protect towns/groups of people. Anyway, I guess what you are saying is that individual government (self-rule) evolves into group government (one or multiple leaders governing multiple persons). But those governments are nowhere near what Peter Schiff wants to "kill". Schiff was refering to the government that exists today. And, the current government is nowhere near what the founding father created.

[torchbearer]

People can also group together to protect themselves. Please correct me if I am wrong, anarchists, but if voluntary organizations form that protect people from aggression, you would still consider this anarchy, no?

That association would be a minimal government.
A confederation of people.
The laws will be based on property rights at the very least... and a communal arrangement at worst.
Everytime a group of people have to live together in an arrangement, some kind of verbal or understood contract exist.

[danberkeley]

You, in a world of individual leaders.
You don't have the man power as one person to protect your rights from a mob.

Agree. Edit: Unless you are Bruce Lee.


You have no rights if you can't protect them.

Disagree. Edit: Using this logic, it is okay to kill a baby because they have no rights they can defend.


The is the defeciency of anarchism. There will always be people who find it advantagous to group together to commit crime.

This is also a deficiency of non-anarchism. There is no reason to believe that a government would not turn on its own people or others.


In your idea, everyone has to be good.
In my idea, only some people have to be good.

In your idea, the government has to be good as well. That is very utopian.

[mport1]

also, let me speak directly to this point.
There is never an absence of rulers.
This is why anarchy is short lived.
Everyone would have to voluntarily be good people like Stef, and all... 100% of the people would have to agree to have no ruler.
THis is why it is fantasy utopia.
There will always be an asshole and his gang.

Everybody would not have to be good. This would have to be the case for government to function well (and if this were the case than government would not be needed). If everybody is not good, than we cannot have a "government" which has a monopoly on the use of force. The people likely to seek the monopoly power of government are those who are evil. We need to have market competition which will impose proper checks on these bad people.

In an anarchy, people still have the ability to have a ruler if they so choose. The difference is that they cannot force me to accept their ruler.

[mport1]

People can also group together to protect themselves. Please correct me if I am wrong, anarchists, but if voluntary organizations form that protect people from aggression, you would still consider this anarchy, no?

Yes, and this is the point of anarchy. Voluntary interactions between people and not using the initiation of force.

[powerofreason]

Good god people.

Anarcho-capitalism: Businesses voluntarily provide all the services that government provides through their coercive monopoly. Courts, protection, roads, etc. The LAWS are the rules people set for use of their property that you must abide by or face consequences. This is not so difficult to understand.

Minarchism: Coercive monopoly control of courts, protection, roads, etc. No competition in the areas the state chooses to have complete control over.
Edit: Shit grows like cancer.

[powerofreason]

Anarchy is a tainted word. Its been used by people with some crazy ideologies. Thats why, imo, we should not use that term. Call yourself an ancap or voluntaryist. Or free marketeer. Not anarchist. Its a dirty word, really.

[tremendoustie]

Ok, let me translate this whole thread for everyone, so we can see that we're arguing over nothing:

Minarchist says:


Here are my definitions:
Anarchy: Crazy chaos and people dying all the time while guys with guns go hog wild.

Minarchism: Voluntary associations of people for the mutual protection and benefit of all, which institute rules to prohibit the perpetration of violence, coersion, and fraud.

You can see that anarchy couldn't last, and would be an absolute bloodbath.


Anarchist says:

Here are my definitions:
Minarchism: Coercive government forced upon people by the threat of violence.

Anarchy: Voluntary associations of people for the mutual protection and benefit of all, which institute rules to prohibit the perpetration of violence, coersion, and fraud.

You can see that minarchism couldn't last, and would lead to absolute tyranny.


So, we all agree. Tyranny and chaos are both bad, and we all want voluntary associations of people for the mutual protection and benefit of all, which institute rules to prohibit the perpetration of violence, coersion, and fraud.

Can we stop arguing now?

[mport1]

We all want voluntary associations of people for the mutual protection and benefit of all, which institute rules to prohibit the perpetration of violence, coersion, and fraud.

Can we stop arguing now?

The problem is that minarchists don't want voluntary associations, they want a state so there is a disagreement. I think this is an important argument that needs to be had since it really gets to the core of these philosophies.

[tremendoustie]

The problem is that minarchists don't want voluntary associations, they want a state so there is a disagreement. I think this is an important argument that needs to be had since it really gets to the core of these philosophies.

Torchbearer stated earlier in the thread that he would not support any government that was not voluntary. His vision of government would be supported by voluntary donations, or voluntary subscriptions:


If government was providing you with a "just" defense against mobs( a self-defense in protection of my self and property), I would voluntarily give it money.
Also, you can have user taxes. Those are voluntary because you don't pay it unless you use it.
Government can exist in a just/minimal state without forced taxation.

If someone supports coercion or the initiation of violence, then that is grounds for a debate. But I don't think anyone here does. If someone does they can speak up, I suppose ...

[mport1]

Torchbearer stated earlier in the thread that he would not support any government that was not voluntary.

Oh, must have missed that. I didn't read though the entire thread.

[tremendoustie]

Oh, must have missed that. I didn't read though the entire thread.

Cool then, we're all one big happy family in agreement :D. And on Chistmas Eve! How appropriate :).

[Brassmouth]

Or, either could be kept in check, with an alert, educated, and armed populace.

Yeah, because that really happens...:rolleyes:


What defines a government vs. a private organization? What is the key difference?

The State holds a self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. That is the difference. The State is violence. Without violence there is anarchy. Without anarchy there is violence.


anarchy would by tyranny by the next night...
and like i've said several times.. anarchy would never exist in a constant state because some asshole and his buddies would use their greater numbers to enslave others.
Welcome to your brief period of anarchy before your next tyrannical government.
You people need to get out dream land.
It is as silly as Marxism.

Every person on this planet would have to be a clone of Stef for a society to exist without government. Nice dream.

Ah, ok. So your solution is to give some people guns and let them rule us. :rolleyes:

Your ignorance is really annoying. You clearly haven't given this even a fraction of the thought we have. Please read some literature about how anarcho-capitalism works, before you continue to spew your nonsense.


anarchy, in its purest form, would have no laws, because it would have no government.

Ugh! You really have absolutely NO CLUE do you? YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT LAW AND JUSTICE COMES FROM THE STATE! A State monoploly of law and order is absolutely unnessicary and counterproductive to a free society. I mean, come on....

[torchbearer]

Ah, ok. So your solution is to give some people guns and let them rule us. :rolleyes:.[/I]

when did I say some people have guns?
I was illustrating how these governments come about.
GIve it up dude, unless you just make some shit up and pull it out of the ass, you have no real response.