Privatization of military = bad?

[socialize_me]

What do we replace the Military Industrial Complex with?? If private contractors are not to make the materials for the war effort, who does? The government? Isn't that even more inefficient? Why would privatization of the military be a bad thing considering privatizing roads, the postal service, public utilities, etc. are "good"?

Not saying what we have now is good, I just want to see what ideas are out there.

[UtahApocalypse]

Defense of our Nation is one of very few responsibilities that the Constitution gives the federal government.

[DeadheadForPaul]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

wow...

[phill4paul]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

wow...

+1

[tangent4ronpaul]

More than you want to know about US arsenals:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/plant-army.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/plant-usaf.htm

-t

[heavenlyboy34]

Defense of our Nation is one of very few responsibilities that the Constitution gives the federal government.

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

[Andrew-Austin]

Only governments need armies... So... What difference would it make so long as the government had a military at its disposal?

I think it would be more difficult to hold a PMC serving the government accountable, the PMC could hire foreigners... And hell, its the PMC's interest to continue war no matter what.



What do we replace the Military Industrial Complex with??

Why not ask if we should scrap the concept of a standing army? Replace it with nothing.



If private contractors are not to make the materials for the war effort, who does? The government? Isn't that even more inefficient?

Well, do you really want to make war more efficient? :rolleyes:
The only downfall to inefficiency from my perspective is we would still be picking up the bill..

[james1844]

Hi All,

By definition, a solider who fights strictly for pay is a mercenary. A privatized army is essentially a mercenary army.

The major problem with mercenaries is the have essentially zero interest in solving a conflict. They only get paid if there is war. Why would any reasonable policymaker involve that kind of dynamic in a conflict?

[socialize_me]

+1

-2

[socialize_me]

Hi All,

By definition, a solider who fights strictly for pay is a mercenary. A privatized army is essentially a mercenary army.

The major problem with mercenaries is the have essentially zero interest in solving a conflict. They only get paid if there is war. Why would any reasonable policymaker involve that kind of dynamic in a conflict?

And what about our current military?? Where ANY soldier gets benefits?? Never used to be like this where the fighting man was pampered by the Federal Government. The Federal Military is basically just as mercenary as any Blackwater militant. In fact, many people just join the military for the benefits--but you wouldn't dare speak the truth about that. To do so would be unpatriotic and it's apparent most people don't have balls.

[rpfan2008]

Privatization of "Right to Kill"!!

I don't think it will do good to any country. remember "power corrupts and absolute power.."

[socialize_me]

Well, do you really want to make war more efficient? :rolleyes:
The only downfall to inefficiency from my perspective is we would still be picking up the bill..

LOL yes, if you ask me if we should fight an efficient war or one that's inefficient, what the fuck do you think? Even Ron Paul makes this point!! "If we fight wars, we should win them, then we should come home--we shouldn't stick around"

Clearly you want an efficient military. Nah, scratch that, I want a sluggish air force that waits until our ground troops are slaughtered before they even leave the air base.

[Andrew-Austin]

LOL yes, if you ask me if we should fight an efficient war or one that's inefficient, what the fuck do you think? Even Ron Paul makes this point!! "If we fight wars, we should win them, then we should come home--we shouldn't stick around"

I wasn't talking about the amount of time it takes for a war to end, but the production of the materials that fuel war.

No thanks, if my money has to go towards war without my consent, I'd rather it be on guns that jam and dud grenades.

The private army your imagining, would still be used to police the world, provoke wars, occupy countries, etc.
It would still be controlled by the whims of politicians, and the PMC's would succeed in lobbying for wars regardless of what we citizens think.


Clearly you want an efficient military. Nah, scratch that, I want a sluggish air force that waits until our ground troops are slaughtered before they even leave the air base.

Its not your Air Force, its not my Air Force. Its not 'our' troops.

[phill4paul]

-2

Thank you for that. I am currently investigating your implications.:)

[socialize_me]

Thank you for that. I am currently investigating your implications.:)

*yawn*

[phill4paul]

What do we replace the Military Industrial Complex with??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

"A military-industrial complex (MIC) is a concept commonly used to refer to policy relationships between governments, national armed forces, and industrial support they obtain from the commercial sector in political approval for research, development, production, use, and support for military training, weapons, equipment, and facilities within the national defense and security policy."


[/QUOTE]If private contractors are not to make the materials for the war effort, who does? The government? Isn't that even more inefficient?.[/QUOTE]

If the Private sector doesn't do it and the government doesn't do it well then whom...hmmmm?

[/QUOTE]Why would privatization of the military be a bad thing considering privatizing roads, the postal service, public utilities, etc. are "good"?Not saying what we have now is good, I just want to see what ideas are out there.[/QUOTE]

The truth is the way that you have written this I can't figure out exactly what point you are trying to make.

a)That the government shouldn't be involved in protecting America.

b)That it should be privitized.

c)In around about way arguing that we should have no a standing Army.

Please choose one. I will reply after work tomorrow. Seriously tired, in need of sleep.

[powerofreason]

War goes away when the State goes away. The State thrives on war.

[socialize_me]

War goes away when the State goes away. The State thrives on war.

WRONG!

War goes away when humans go away. Even with your anarchist absolutist views, good luck convincing 200+ countries to abolish government, because as long as everyone else has a military and we have no government, then we're FUCKED. Anarchism never will work, and it sure as hell won't work when 270+ countries have regular armies. Nananana not gonna happen.

Again, take your anarchist views and move to Somalia. Just go there for a week and tell us how it goes...just a nice lil vacation. There's your utopia.

[socialize_me]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

"A military-industrial complex (MIC) is a concept commonly used to refer to policy relationships between governments, national armed forces, and industrial support they obtain from the commercial sector in political approval for research, development, production, use, and support for military training, weapons, equipment, and facilities within the national defense and security policy."
Oh I almost forgot about you!

+ W2 + Uncle Sam. Enjoy work :cool:

[idiom]

Where would you find a PMC with nukes? It is the Federal Governments constitutional requirement to destroy the world in the event of a miscommunication.

[powerofreason]

WRONG!

War goes away when humans go away. Even with your anarchist absolutist views, good luck convincing 200+ countries to abolish government, because as long as everyone else has a military and we have no government, then we're FUCKED. Anarchism never will work, and it sure as hell won't work when 270+ countries have regular armies. Nananana not gonna happen.

Again, take your anarchist views and move to Somalia. Just go there for a week and tell us how it goes...just a nice lil vacation. There's your utopia.

Militaries are funded through taxation dumbass. And guess what, if we don't have a government apparatus to be taken over, one will have to be built from the ground up. So, one, people will never accept it, and two, it would be too expensive and bloody of a fight. And Somalia might actually be a nice place to live by now if the U.N. would just butt out. Or have you been ignorant of how much their quality of life has improved without government?

So fuck you and your socialism and your ignorant bankrupt statist ideology. What incentive do people have to wage war on each other if they have to pay for it? None whatsoever. It doesn't make money and it costs way too much. Nevermind finding people who want to go die for you. Maybe if you'd pull your head out of your ass for a second and do some reading/thinking you'd realize that.

[socialize_me]

Militaries are funded through taxation dumbass. And guess what, if we don't have a government apparatus to be taken over, one will have to be built from the ground up. So, one, people will never accept it, and two, it would be too expensive and bloody of a fight. And Somalia might actually be a nice place to live by now if the U.N. would just butt out. Or have you been ignorant of how much their quality of life has improved without government?

So fuck you and your socialism and your ignorant bankrupt statist ideology. What incentive do people have to wage war on each other if they have to pay for it? None whatsoever. It doesn't make money and it costs way too much. Nevermind finding people who want to go die for you. Maybe if you'd pull your head out of your ass for a second and do some reading/thinking you'd realize that.

No, fuck you.


Militaries are funded through taxation dumbass.

LOL which is exactly WHY you'd have to have every government on planet earth to be disassembled. Are you actually that fucking dumb to believe that would happen?? That's actually more retarded than national building and carrying out President Wilson's vision, because 6+ billion with no government is really fucking stupid...not to mention impossible to convince those billions of people to get rid of everything they've known. What's more kooky? Trying to spread democracy around the world, or trying to spread anarchism around the world? Kinda funny how having every country be a Republic is a bad thing since it's interventionism and one of Ron Paul's biggest points he made, yet you're all for anarchism worldwide!

Isn't it amazing how OTHER people's ideas are fucked up, but yours have all the answers? Yup! Dissolve the state and spread anarchy around the world....spreading anything else is wrong because that involves force. If we could forcefully overthrow all governments and replace them with nothing, let's do it!!! You're a piece of work...:eek:

Oh and I'm not a "socialist" you utopian fuck. Just because I oppose anarchy doesn't mean I think I should tax you to pay for my health care. See, this is exactly why anarchy scares me to death. It's because fucktards like yourself absolutely lose it and go off shooting people because they pointed out how retarded your logic is. At least with government, I can have your ass fried for trying to kill me.

You deserve to be in a box.

[powerofreason]

LOL which is exactly WHY you'd have to have every government on planet earth to be disassembled. Are you actually that fucking dumb to believe that would happen?? That's actually more retarded than national building and carrying out President Wilson's vision, because 6+ billion with no government is really fucking stupid...not to mention impossible to convince those billions of people to get rid of everything they've known. What's more kooky? Trying to spread democracy around the world, or trying to spread anarchism around the world? Kinda funny how having every country be a Republic is a bad thing since it's interventionism and one of Ron Paul's biggest points he made, yet you're all for anarchism worldwide!

Isn't it amazing how OTHER people's ideas are fucked up, but yours have all the answers? Yup! Dissolve the state and spread anarchy around the world....spreading anything else is wrong because that involves force. If we could forcefully overthrow all governments and replace them with nothing, let's do it!!! You're a piece of work...:eek:

Oh and I'm not a "socialist" you utopian fuck. Just because I oppose anarchy doesn't mean I think I should tax you to pay for my health care. See, this is exactly why anarchy scares me to death. It's because fucktards like yourself absolutely lose it and go off shooting people because they pointed out how retarded your logic is. At least with government, I can have your ass fried for trying to kill me.

You deserve to be in a box.

Ok, where do I start. Apparently you do not see the difference with establishing democratic governments and with removing governments, period. Allow me to enlighten you. Removing government is a defensive act. Thus, the force is justified. Establishing government is an act of aggression, thus the force is not justified.

And yes, you are a socialist. You want to keep the crappy justice system socialized, along with roads, security, etc. How's that any different then forcing me to pay for your healthcare as well? Its just as illogical and works just as poorly.

At least if anarchy becomes established people like you will die off relatively quickly.

I don't think your comment about me trying to kill you really deserves a response so I'll just leave at this.

But, I believe that if free societies do become established and somehow are able to survive without outside governments ruining them, that they will multiply. States will lose their mystical aura of legitimacy and they will crumble, no violence necessary.

[socialize_me]

Ok, where do I start. Apparently you do not see the difference with establishing democratic governments and with removing governments, period. Allow me to enlighten you. Removing government is a defensive act. Thus, the force is justified. Establishing government is an act of aggression, thus the force is not justified.

And yes, you are a socialist. You want to keep the crappy justice system socialized, along with roads, security, etc. How's that any different then forcing me to pay for your healthcare as well? Its just as illogical and works just as poorly.

At least if anarchy becomes established people like you will die off relatively quickly.

I don't think your comment about me trying to kill you really deserves a response so I'll just leave at this.

But, I believe that if free societies do become established and somehow are able to survive without outside governments ruining them, that they will multiply. States will lose their mystical aura of legitimacy and they will crumble, no violence necessary.

No, you'll die off quickly as being an instigator for violence. You'd be one of those vigilantes that would get his ass shot in public.

Okay, so if I CLEARLY don't understand what the fuck Anarchy is or how great it would be and how much of a socialist I am for thinking we should have no income tax and have a Constitutional Republic, then could you politely explain to me the Somalia situation?? How's it working in Eastern Somalia where they have anarchy? I've heard the infant mortality rate is double digit there! People who live past 25 there are in a minority!

There's your anarchist state, dipshit. Go move to your utopia, or go on vacation there, if you can't stand modern society. You don't want to move? Then you're just as much a socialist as anyone else here only that you're a delusional dipshit who hasn't caught on to reality: IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. GET OVER IT. You are a minority that has existed for centuries and are nothing more than just dumbass instigators that always get shot or imprisoned for actually creating violence yourselves. It's funny, anarchists preach that the State is aggressive and anarchy is peaceful and defensive, yet they're the ones burning buildings, starting riots, throwing rocks, and creating all sorts of havoc on innocent people! These aren't government officials you idiots are going after; these are mothers and fathers, jackass.

Anarchy is another ideology that likes to stroke itself. Ohhhh you guys just have everything figured out. You're all just a bunch of looney utopian theorists that are just as hypocritical as socialists are. You preach nonviolence yet you attack civilians and terrorize them. You guys are the first to go blood drunk and wail on anything in your path. To you guys, government isn't the only enemy--everyone who isn't wearing your color is. You're a fanatic who needs to get locked up in a box so the rational human beings who live in the real world can actually have a civilized discussion.

[powerofreason]

sigh, how many times do I have to post this crap before it sinks in

learn: No matter how shitty of a situation a society is in, the existence of government always makes things worse.

READ and LEARN

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.

[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.

[powerofreason]

No, you'll die off quickly as being an instigator for violence. You'd be one of those vigilantes that would get his ass shot in public.

Okay, so if I CLEARLY don't understand what the fuck Anarchy is or how great it would be and how much of a socialist I am for thinking we should have no income tax and have a Constitutional Republic, then could you politely explain to me the Somalia situation?? How's it working in Eastern Somalia where they have anarchy? I've heard the infant mortality rate is double digit there! People who live past 25 there are in a minority!

There's your anarchist state, dipshit. Go move to your utopia, or go on vacation there, if you can't stand modern society. You don't want to move? Then you're just as much a socialist as anyone else here only that you're a delusional dipshit who hasn't caught on to reality: IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. GET OVER IT. You are a minority that has existed for centuries and are nothing more than just dumbass instigators that always get shot or imprisoned for actually creating violence yourselves. It's funny, anarchists preach that the State is aggressive and anarchy is peaceful and defensive, yet they're the ones burning buildings, starting riots, throwing rocks, and creating all sorts of havoc on innocent people! These aren't government officials you idiots are going after; these are mothers and fathers, jackass.

Anarchy is another ideology that likes to stroke itself. Ohhhh you guys just have everything figured out. You're all just a bunch of looney utopian theorists that are just as hypocritical as socialists are. You preach nonviolence yet you attack civilians and terrorize them. You guys are the first to go blood drunk and wail on anything in your path. To you guys, government isn't the only enemy--everyone who isn't wearing your color is. You're a fanatic who needs to get locked up in a box so the rational human beings who live in the real world can actually have a civilized discussion.

You've been indoctrinated well. I eagerly await your response to the two articles I posted.

[heavenlyboy34]

What do we replace the Military Industrial Complex with?? If private contractors are not to make the materials for the war effort, who does? The government? Isn't that even more inefficient? Why would privatization of the military be a bad thing considering privatizing roads, the postal service, public utilities, etc. are "good"?

Not saying what we have now is good, I just want to see what ideas are out there.

Short answer...

Private military is best in most cases. If war is declared, the constitution allows congress to raise an army. I side with the Anti-Federalists on this. :D;):)

[powerofreason]

One more thing.

From the Anarcho-Capitalist FAQ (http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html)

4. Isn't anarcho-capitalism utopian?
No. Anarcho-capitalists tend to be pragmatic, and argue that, no matter how good or bad man is, he is better off in liberty. If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists think that some men are okay and some aren't; and there will always be some crime. We are not expecting any major change in human nature in that regard. Since utopianism by definition requires a change in human nature, anarcho-capitalism is not utopian.

[heavenlyboy34]

At least with government, I can have your ass fried for trying to kill me.


Only if you bribe the right people. ;) non-archism FTW! :D

[The_Orlonater]

I can't choose between extremely small minarchism and anarcho capitalism, it's like I switch back and forth everyday? Whate gives? :D

[heavenlyboy34]

I can't choose between extremely small minarchism and anarcho capitalism, it's like I switch back and forth everyday? Whate gives? :D

You'll grow out of "archy" before you know it if you pay attention. ;):)

[powerofreason]

I can't choose between extremely small minarchism and anarcho capitalism, it's like I switch back and forth everyday? Whate gives? :D

Minarchism is utopian, raise the black flag!

[idiom]

From that point of view... the Somalis have self organised a grass roots navy that is running rings around the U.S.

[socialize_me]

Ooo yay we get to post articles on Somalia. Okay, my turn!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/01/2008-11-01_girl_13_stoned_to_death_in_somalia_as_10.html

13 year old girl stoned to death 82 days ago by Islamic militants in your utopian state, Somalia, because she was raped while more than 1,000 people watched. Oh, but thank God she was able to watch BBC, have a Coke, and talk on her cell phone before she died!

Yeah, you anarchists are pieces of work. Real pieces of work. Who gives a shit if you have economic freedom when you have no social freedom? Somalia has Coke, BBC, and the other corporations you cited---WE DO TOO! The only difference is that here, no one would ever, EVER stone someone to death while 1,000 Americans watch on, much less stone someone when they themselves were victim to rape!!

Now, you could bitch and moan and claim this private militia was a form of government, but yet reason again escapes you. Reason...something very arbitrary I guess...we all have it, but it just so happens you have the reason of a psychopath. Only a dipshit would find something like being able to drink a Coke as a good thing when one risks being stoned to death for being a victim of one of the most violent acts a human could commit on another.

Again, in America I have a cell phone. I have a laptop, I have the BBC, I have cable TV, I have a car, I have not to fear that I will be stoned to death by some private militia (possibly yours) because of something someone else did to me.

The point is, people have always and will always try and rise up to power over the population. In an anarchist state, it's no different. In America, we would have the Fundamentalists, just like they are in Somalia, running the show. They would be the most radicalized groups with their own militia going around terrorizing nonbelievers, etc. Anarchy has no recourse. This 13 year old girl that died--yeah, her?--the executors weren't apprehended. They were more than likely promoted in their private militia ranks and perhaps given a substantial stipend for their efforts. In a place where you have a republic, those people would be tried and justice would be done upon them.

So I don't quite understand what your point is concerning the fact that there's business in Somalia. Whoopty-doo!! It's not like there would be nothing--of course there's something in Somalia! They all aren't hunters and gatherers so it's common sense they would have a marketplace for goods and services. But guess what? We have that here too dipshit! Only I don't have to worry about some private militia driving up and gunning my ass down because I'm on the Blue Team!!

There's no way to stop these militias from popping up in an anarchist state, because in order to do so, you would have to coerce them which would be a form of government and "illegal" with your logic. So I guess buy a bigger gun than the other guy and have at it! Very Darwinian to the point of psychotic pleasure....yes, we all were meant to be able to possess arms to kill the people trying to kill us. The only problem is, once one person kills someone, the whole system eventually is trying to kill each other. Because for one death, you aggravate a brother. For every brother dead, a Father takes revenge, etc. etc. It's a never ending "trickle down" effect where one person could disrupt the entire "order" of anarchism.

People have been killing each other for very long time. Anarchy would be no different, so then you would basically have militia vs. militia vs. militia vs. militia vs. etc etc etc etc etc etc...either way, a militia is a form of government. You're trying to secure order through your own reasoning, which is exactly what the institution of government is. Just one or two or more people trying to secure order through their own perceptive reasoning. Some people's reasoning like Hitler's wasn't so good, others' like Mother Teresa was honorable. As long as humans can kill one another, anarchy provides no remedy. As long as private armies can rise up and kill another, then anarchy has failed in its purpose. Either way, as long as you have a civilization, you have some form of government. We would all have to be hunters and gatherers where we would need no government, but the fact is most people live in towns and cities where all it takes is one deviant to piss off everyone else. If one person slashes my tires on my car, I have no recourse with anarchy. What the fuck can I do, shun the person? Shame on you mister! You think these teenagers give a fuck?? Honestly?

Owned. Leave now. :cool:

[socialize_me]

Oh, and as far as me being "very well indoctrinated", then I suppose the Founders were too. Yeah, I can list the people who, if it weren't for their writings, works, efforts, and lives, people like Ron Paul wouldn't have a career or the ideas he has.

Let's see...who's on my team?? Oh I got Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and oh yes, even Thomas Paine perhaps one of the most radical Founders we had. Who do you have?? Murray Rothbard? LOL? Listen, I like Rothbard...he's done quite a bit for the Ludwig von Mises Institute and has some great ideas, but...really? You couldn't get someone like Voltaire? Oh no...he's in my group too..maybe Ron Paul?? Ahhh nope! He's with me.

Kinda ironic...you say I'm indoctrinated yet you're posting in a Ron Paul Forum, a man who supports a Constitutional Republic...LoL?

[Andrew-Austin]

Ooo yay we get to post articles on Somalia. Okay, my turn!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/01/2008-11-01_girl_13_stoned_to_death_in_somalia_as_10.html

13 year old girl stoned to death 82 days ago by Islamic militants in your utopian state, Somalia, because she was raped while more than 1,000 people watched. Oh, but thank God she was able to watch BBC, have a Coke, and talk on her cell phone before she died!

Now, you could bitch and moan and claim this private militia was a form of government, but yet reason again escapes you. Reason...something very arbitrary I guess...we all have it, but it just so happens you have the reason of a psychopath. Only a dipshit would find something like being able to drink a Coke as a good thing when one risks being stoned to death for being a victim of one of the most violent acts a human could commit on another.

Again, in America I have a cell phone. I have a laptop, I have the BBC, I have cable TV, I have a car, I have not to fear that I will be stoned to death by some private militia (possibly yours) because of something someone else did to me.

The point is, people have always and will always try and rise up to power over the population. In an anarchist state, it's no different. In America, we would have the Fundamentalists, just like they are in Somalia, running the show. They would be the most radicalized groups with their own militia going around terrorizing nonbelievers, etc. Anarchy has no recourse. This 13 year old girl that died--yeah, her?--the executors weren't apprehended. They were more than likely promoted in their private militia ranks and perhaps given a substantial stipend for their efforts. In a place where you have a republic, those people would be tried and justice would be done upon them.

So I don't quite understand what your point is concerning the fact that there's business in Somalia. Whoopty-doo!! It's not like there would be nothing--of course there's something in Somalia! They all aren't hunters and gatherers so it's common sense they would have a marketplace for goods and services. But guess what? We have that here too dipshit! Only I don't have to worry about some private militia driving up and gunning my ass down because I'm on the Blue Team!!

There's no way to stop these militias from popping up in an anarchist state, because in order to do so, you would have to coerce them which would be a form of government and "illegal" with your logic. So I guess buy a bigger gun than the other guy and have at it! Very Darwinian to the point of psychotic pleasure....yes, we all were meant to be able to possess arms to kill the people trying to kill us. The only problem is, once one person kills someone, the whole system eventually is trying to kill each other. Because for one death, you aggravate a brother. For every brother dead, a Father takes revenge, etc. etc. It's a never ending "trickle down" effect where one person could disrupt the entire "order" of anarchism.

People have been killing each other for very long time. Anarchy would be no different, so then you would basically have militia vs. militia vs. militia vs. militia vs. etc etc etc etc etc etc...either way, a militia is a form of government. You're trying to secure order through your own reasoning, which is exactly what the institution of government is. Just one or two or more people trying to secure order through their own perceptive reasoning. Some people's reasoning like Hitler's wasn't so good, others' like Mother Teresa was honorable. As long as humans can kill one another, anarchy provides no remedy. As long as private armies can rise up and kill another, then anarchy has failed in its purpose. Either way, as long as you have a civilization, you have some form of government. We would all have to be hunters and gatherers where we would need no government, but the fact is most people live in towns and cities where all it takes is one deviant to piss off everyone else. If one person slashes my tires on my car, I have no recourse with anarchy. What the fuck can I do, shun the person? Shame on you mister! You think these teenagers give a fuck?? Honestly?

Owned. Leave now. :cool:

This was 50-70% emotional dribble absolutely ridden with fallacies, if you could just post your points without the fluff that would be great. Otherwise its kinda hard to respond to a stream of consciousness "I hate you" letter in a reasonable time frame.

[Zolah]

This was 50-70% emotional dribble absolutely ridden with fallacies, if you could just post your points without the fluff that would be great. Otherwise its kinda hard to respond to a stream of consciousness "I hate you" letter in a reasonable time frame.

Seconded, and without ad hominems, etc. Else this quote from your original post looks a little silly:


I just want to see what ideas are out there.

Oh so innocent at first..

[powerofreason]

Your entire "argument" is based on the straw man that anarcho capitalism is utopia, yet it is not and I have never presented it that way. You have failed utterly to respond to my articles and instead post some emotional story about a crime that took place in Somalia. So what? People are shot to death every day in America and plenty of people are never caught. Also, in the times of the founding fathers anarchy was not a well developed political theory, so it's not surprising they weren't anarchists. Some were pretty damn close.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Destroy the MIC Snake = PEACE!

PS: DESTROY K street too! ;)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

"A military-industrial complex (MIC) is a concept commonly used to refer to policy relationships between governments, national armed forces, and industrial support they obtain from the commercial sector in political approval for research, development, production, use, and support for military training, weapons, equipment, and facilities within the national defense and security policy."

[heavenlyboy34]

Time for some of you to actually read about "anarchy" before you babble more of your nonsense about it. See below for a starter...


http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer185.html


The Real World Order Is Chaotic


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



(http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer185.html&title=The%20Real%20World%20Order%20Is%20Chaotic&topic=political_opinion)
http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=58&campaignid=48&zoneid=5&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Fshaffer%2Fs haffer185.html&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Fshaffer %2Fshaffer-arch.html&cb=74b4c5fe55
http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=5&n=a39b1c5b (http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a39b1c5b&amp)

Chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. Chaos always defeats order because it is better organized.
~ Terry Pratchett
My last words on the gallows will be to praise the study of chaos. For the sake of our very survival as a species, the destructive and dysfunctional nature of our highly-structured world may soon force humanity into an outburst of intelligence. Should that occur, an understanding of the creative and orderly processes of chaos may save us from the consequences of our collective hubris.
What can be more insane than mankind’s continuing insistence upon playing out the simple-minded notion that the intricacies and variability of our complex world can be fully comprehended and rendered manageable by wise leaders? In a world caught up in the madness of wars, genocidal campaigns, economic depressions, and the resort – by some – to the despair implicit in suicide bombings, there is no better occasion for us to consider a major paradigm shift in our thinking.
"Desperation" may well be the best word to describe our current responses to the ubiquitous malfunctioning of social systems premised on the necessity for vertically-structured, top-down, command-and-control organizational forms. Western civilization collapses all around us, and yet most of us continue to insist upon a renewed commitment to variations of the Platonic vision of a world made orderly by philosopher-kings.
Perhaps the clearest expression of just how desperate mankind has become in its efforts to restore social order without, in the process, deviating from the premise of centralized authority, was seen in President George W. Bush’s usurpation of personalized decision-making power. Having tested the water to see if there was any significant objection to his stated preference for political dictatorship – of which there was little – Mr. Bush proceeded to turn the direction of American society to whatever whim or vision fascinated him at the moment. If war was an attractive course, he would declare it on his own initiative – constitutional grants of such authority to congress notwithstanding. Nor did it seem to matter to Boobus Americanus, or the media, or the corporate owners of American society, what the pretext or identification of enemies for such wars happened to be.
And as decades of government economic planning, direction, and other interventions began playing themselves out in the dislocations that now threaten to pull the marketplace into the destructive vortex of a black hole, resort is once again had to the premise of centrally-directed political power. Far from even pretending to the status of philosopher-kings trying to rationally manage the present crisis, the president, members of congress, the Federal Reserve Board, and other government officials operate upon no greater insight than the unstated assumption "let’s try this and see what happens!" Having long been accustomed to believing that no problem was too considerable that could not be overcome by the infusion of money, congress and the executive branch began sending trillions of dollars to their corporate sponsors. Contrary to the presumed premises of "economic planning," there were no announced directions as to how such money was to be spent, or what specific consequences were anticipated. It was enough that members of the corporate-state hierarchy were in menacing straits, and that the federal government owned a printing press that could alleviate such difficulties! The ancient saying, "desperate times call for desperate measures," were invoked to rationalize this grand-scale looting. But in so doing, the political system inadvertently confessed to its incapacity to efficaciously plan in a world of complexity.
Boobus – unaccustomed to thinking outside the circle of his institution-serving conditioning in the necessity for centralized authority – has been unable to envision any alternative other than replacing a failed wizard with a new and improved model. Barack Obama became the establishment’s well-hyped candidate, being packaged and sold not as yet another failed philosopher-king, but in the nature of a god-king. Gods, after all, are looked upon as both omniscient and all-powerful, capable of transcending the limited capacities of mere humans to deal with the uncertainties of complexity. Obama promised "change" to a beleaguered public without, in the process, altering any of the fundamental practices or structures that produced the disorder. Indeed, as announcements of his forthcoming cabinet revealed the names of many of the political retreads whose past efforts helped to produce our current problems – including Obama’s retention of President Bush’s present Secretary of Defense! – expectations of "change" eroded to little more than the placing of corn flakes in a more attractive box. When Obama proves as incapable as his predecessors of imposing greatness upon the country; and his presumed godliness evaporates to reveal just another ambitious politician; I wonder if his idolatrous followers will be as inclined to deal with him as fiercely as Daniel Dravot was treated by the denizens of Kafiristan in Kipling’s The Man Who Would Be King?
At no time do I recall such a frequent recitation of the definition of "insanity" as "continuing to repeat the same behavior, expecting a different result." Perhaps this reflects a growing awareness of the need for a major transformation in how we think about the nature of social systems. The Ron Paul phenomenon seems to have tapped into an undercurrent of energy – particularly among people in their twenties, thirties, and forties – that goes far beyond opposition to war, the burdens of taxation, and government regulatory and fiscal policies. I was in Minneapolis for the Ron Paul alternate convention, and was stunned to hear an audience of some twelve thousand people cheer Tom Woods’ reference to the "Austrian theory of the business cycle." The kids know that "the system" just doesn’t work anymore; that it cannot deliver its promised order; that they will simply continue to be ground up in the machinery that serves only a privileged elite, and not themselves.
The foundations of Western civilization are fast crumbling. Like hillside homes caught in a landslide, there is little rational people can do other than distancing themselves from the descent while, at the same time, helping to establish more peaceful, free, and cooperative ways of working with others. In the words of the late Thomas Kuhn, mankind is in need of a fundamental "paradigm shift" in our social thinking. An increased familiarity with the nature of "chaos" may provide the catalyst for such a change.
We humans have long allowed ourselves to be dominated by linear thinking. We have become too attached to structured forms of thinking (e.g., regarding emotional expression as inferior to logic and rational thought; treating the literal as superior to the metaphoric), which has led us to prefer structured organizational forms to the more informal. Linear thinking has also led us to the worship of technology as the principal means by which to improve our quality of life. None of this is to condemn such thinking outright – if I were going in for major surgery, I would want the surgeon to approach the operation in a linear fashion rather than as a "stream of consciousness." It is, however, to suggest a more balanced relationship between linear and non-linear thinking.
The study of chaos makes us more familiar with the non-linear nature of complex systems. From our own bodies to social systems to the rest of the physical universe, our world is far more characterized by spontaneous, informal, and unplanned behavior than our linear thinking chooses to acknowledge. Even giving institutional officials the benefit of the doubt as to their motives, we are fated to play out the "unintended consequences" of our best of intentions. This was the essence of Ron Paul’s debate quarrel with Rudy Giuliani concerning the "blowback" of American foreign policies that led to the events of 9/11. Paul was but applying Newton’s "third law of motion" (i.e., for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction), a proposition that a thoroughly institutionalized and linear Giuliani was unable to grasp.
The forces of chaos will continue to play themselves out, regardless of the self-righteous arrogance with which they are opposed by politicians, public opinion polls, and the babblings of journalism-school-trained news "reporters." The trillions of dollars of "bailout" funds will have unforeseen "trickle-down" consequences long after the checks have cleared the Treasury. Learning how to function within a world whose forces are indifferent to our demands is the opportunity provided by the study of the order that lies hidden within chaotic systems. It is a field of inquiry whose insights will prove discomforting to members of the political class; the philosopher-kings and god-kings who will continue to ignore its teachings to the peril of us all.

[powerofreason]

Bottom line: no government always trumps government
less government always trumps more government
government causes more human suffering than all
private criminals put together many times over

Government has caused me and my family more grief than any cowardly criminals could have. The worst part is, they claim they are my friend, and that I somehow have a say in their criminal organization (this making it all ok apparently). Think about your own life. Who has stolen from you, killed in your name, jailed innocent people in your name, tortured in your name, invaded your privacy, spied on you, searched you at the airport, censored your tv, gave phone and utility companies monopolies...... I can go on for hours. Anarchy please.

[Knightskye]

LOL yes, if you ask me if we should fight an efficient war or one that's inefficient, what the fuck do you think? Even Ron Paul makes this point!! "If we fight wars, we should win them, then we should come home--we shouldn't stick around"

You're taking his quote out of context.

He was talking about declarations of war, and how we didn't do that when we invaded Iraq. We also didn't send enough troops in, and didn't have a well-thought-out strategy.