There Are No Illegal Aliens, Just Human Beings

[powerofreason]

This is the post I posted in the other active thread on so called "illegal immigrants". It was deleted because I was told that OP's have judgement over what is off-topic and can request deletes. Clearly, my post was embarrassing to this person. I will always tell it how it is. No euphemisms, no BS. Just logical consistency and the utmost respect for the sovereignty of the individual.



Illegal aliens? You mean like from outer space? Give me a break. These people are innocent of any wrongdoing. Leave it to the cold-hearted conservatives to twist this issue around on these poor people seeking a better life for themselves and their families. The government steals from you and you blame the recipients of the theft for the stealing instead of the people ACTUALLY stealing from you. Come on man, think about it.

These people are human beings, just like you or I. They have the same rights, natural law does not discriminate. It is not wrong for free travelers to cross an invisible line. It is not wrong for people to receive stolen money. Theoretically, if the victim of theft comes looking for their stolen money the recipient wouid have to give it back. Of course, all the money is mixed up so thats not really possible. Nevertheless, no wrongdoing is being done by these people.

[Kraig]

This is why we need to target the thief!

[fedup100]

Here you go folks, THIS is the result of liberals and there agenda in schools on on the controlled media, this is the end of our country thanks to the brain dead red diaper doper babies such as this outstanding forum member who believes the usa shpuld be dissolved.

[Kraig]

Here you go folks, THIS is the result of liberals and there agenda in schools on on the controlled media, this is the end of our country thanks to the brain dead red diaper doper babies such as this outstanding forum member who believes the usa shpuld be dissolved.

So you just called me a brain dead red diaper doper baby? lol

[powerofreason]

Here you go folks, THIS is the result of liberals and there agenda in schools on on the controlled media, this is the end of our country thanks to the brain dead red diaper doper babies such as this outstanding forum member who believes the usa shpuld be dissolved.

Of course I believe the USA should be dissolved. I don't endorse criminal organizations of any manner. I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. I am a libertarian. I believe in natural law, derived from common sense/reason/logic. I am not ashamed of my beliefs and will continue to help spread the gospel of freedom to the masses. I don't need to make personal insults like you do, I have reason on my side. I never get upset when someone challenges my beliefs because i always have an answer ready.

[dannno]

I completely agree. I have way more experience living around illegal aliens probably than anybody here since I grew up a few miles from the biggest illegal encampment in Southern California. They had multiple restaurants, a soccer field and all kinds of stuff back there for thousands of workers who toiled the local flower fields. Law enforcement looked the other way for years. The community did not have any problems with theft or kidnapping or anything of the sort.. in fact my area probably had one of the lowest crime rates in the country.

[nayjevin]

I hear both sides. We should focus blame on the incentive system, as Ron Paul does, rather than the beneficiaries.

[powerofreason]

Sadly, some people seem to think that living in a certain geographical location on the globe makes one (somehow) better or more deserving of certain basic rights. Ethnocentrism and racism are two things that really male my blood boil.:mad:

[Lord Xar]

Your post was not embarrassing at all. Infact, I was embarrassed for you. Your need to derail and shove your point down others throats was disconcerting. Telling it "how it is" is ok when asked. You were not asked. You have this insatiable urge to promote your agenda where its not wanted.

Now on to your post.

Nobody denies that "illegal aliens" (a term I will use) are human beings like you and me. But you are making assumptions when you say "cross an invisible line". This IS a law. That is a fact. You are discounting the law to serve your own belief system. Having a belief system is fine, even if its in fairy land, but its not fine in "real life".

There is a line. There are laws. And because of these laws/rules, we abide by a structure. When people cross the border illegally (because of the aforementioned laws/rules), that impact affects me. I have to pay the price of unyielding illegal immigration with horrendous schools, hospital closures, balkanization of communities, crime, higher taxes, lower property values... and not only that. They overwhelmingly vote for bigger government policies.

So, in your utopian world then perhaps it can work. But in the real world. Its suicide. As is bearing itself out.

The government IS the real issue, no doubt. But I believe winning battles with the structures set in place.

I don't know you. But perhaps if you had a family with children you will understand the "other" point of view a little more.

Laws are broken. Rewarding of these law breakers, brings more. Bringing more inevitably will bring amnesty. These new voters will overwhelmingly vote left. There goes your ideas of smaller government.

In effect, you are advocating your own beliefs destruction. How appropriate. Curious, isn't it?

[Kraig]

Your post was not embarrassing at all. Infact, I was embarrassed for you. Your need to derail and shove your point down others throats was disconcerting. Telling it "how it is" is ok when asked. You were not asked. You have this insatiable urge to promote your agenda where its not wanted.

Now on to your post.

Nobody denies that "illegal aliens" (a term I will use) are human beings like you and me. But you are making assumptions when you say "cross an invisible line". This IS a law. That is a fact. You are discounting the law to serve your own belief system. Having a belief system is fine, even if its in fairy land, but its not fine in "real life".

There is a line. There are laws. And because of these laws/rules, we abide by a structure. When people cross the border illegally (because of the aforementioned laws/rules), that impact affects me. I have to pay the price of unyielding illegal immigration with horrendous schools, hospital closures, balkanization of communities, crime, higher taxes, lower property values... and not only that. They overwhelmingly vote for bigger government policies.

So, in your utopian world then perhaps it can work. But in the real world. Its suicide. As is bearing itself out.

The government IS the real issue, no doubt. But I believe winning battles with the structures set in place.

I don't know you. But perhaps if you had a family with children you will understand the "other" point of view a little more.

Laws are broken. Rewarding of these law breakers, brings more. Bringing more inevitably will bring amnesty. These new voters will overwhelmingly vote left. There goes your ideas of smaller government.

In effect, you are advocating your own beliefs destruction. How appropriate. Curious, isn't it?

The law makes you a slave yet you worship it, moron.

[powerofreason]

This is important to reiterate: Blame the thieves, not the people who are being showered with money and services. Once again, receiving stolen money is not a crime, but if a person comes looking for their property the recipient has to give it back and would be entitled to go after the giver of the property if there was some type of payment for a service involved instead of the property being a simple no strings attached gift.

[Lord Xar]

I completely agree. I have way more experience living around illegal aliens probably than anybody here since I grew up a few miles from the biggest illegal encampment in Southern California. They had multiple restaurants, a soccer field and all kinds of stuff back there for thousands of workers who toiled the local flower fields. Law enforcement looked the other way for years. The community did not have any problems with theft or kidnapping or anything of the sort.. in fact my area probably had one of the lowest crime rates in the country.

I believe you are full of it. I LIVE in Souther California and I really would LOVE to know of this "illegal immigrant" encapement you speak of. I really would. Tell me. Because I am around illegal immigrants all the time, and I see the fallout very clearly.

So please, do tell. Where and what is this illegal immigrant encapment?

[powerofreason]

Your post was not embarrassing at all. Infact, I was embarrassed for you. Your need to derail and shove your point down others throats was disconcerting. Telling it "how it is" is ok when asked. You were not asked. You have this insatiable urge to promote your agenda where its not wanted.

Now on to your post.

Nobody denies that "illegal aliens" (a term I will use) are human beings like you and me. But you are making assumptions when you say "cross an invisible line". This IS a law. That is a fact. You are discounting the law to serve your own belief system. Having a belief system is fine, even if its in fairy land, but its not fine in "real life".

There is a line. There are laws. And because of these laws/rules, we abide by a structure. When people cross the border illegally (because of the aforementioned laws/rules), that impact affects me. I have to pay the price of unyielding illegal immigration with horrendous schools, hospital closures, balkanization of communities, crime, higher taxes, lower property values... and not only that. They overwhelmingly vote for bigger government policies.

So, in your utopian world then perhaps it can work. But in the real world. Its suicide. As is bearing itself out.

The government IS the real issue, no doubt. But I believe winning battles with the structures set in place.

I don't know you. But perhaps if you had a family with children you will understand the "other" point of view a little more.

Laws are broken. Rewarding of these law breakers, brings more. Bringing more inevitably will bring amnesty. These new voters will overwhelmingly vote left. There goes your ideas of smaller government.

In effect, you are advocating your own beliefs destruction. How appropriate. Curious, isn't it?

You're totally brainwashed, period. Keep worshipping your masters, slave. Laws are simply made up rules enforced by people with guns.

[sparebulb]

I would think that a person who openly strives for the dissolution of the US and our contract to live under the Constitution is even more dangerous than any beet-red communist.

[Kraig]

I believe you are full of it. I LIVE in Souther California and I really would LOVE to know of this "illegal immigrant" encapement you speak of. I really would. Tell me. Because I am around illegal immigrants all the time, and I see the fallout very clearly.

So please, do tell. Where and what is this illegal immigrant encapment?

lmao so you can go cry to the police like you cry to the mods?

[Lord Xar]

The law makes you a slave yet you worship it, moron.

Your rebuttal is enlightening and speaks volumes about you. I applaud your intellect.

[Kraig]

Your rebuttal is enlightening and speaks volumes about you. I applaud your intellect.

I don't applaud yours.

[Lord Xar]

lmao so you can go cry to the police like you cry to the mods?

lol. Seriously, are you even old enough to be on the internet? You are rather childish.

No, danno is a fibber. He uses the same "illegal immigrant encapement" in all of his pro-open borders philosphy and I now I want him to qualify his "experience".

[powerofreason]

Utilitarians suck. They ruined libertarianism. Thats about all I have to say to these "practical" people who improperly use the term utopian. Small government is utopian.

No wrongdoing is being done, so why is any punishment necessary? Isn't that common sense? Isn't that practical? To not punish people who haven't done anything wrong. Like I said in the other thread, the law doesn't matter:


No one says about the Hitler regime, "Well at least they killed the Jews by the book."

[Kraig]

lol. Seriously, are you even old enough to be on the internet? You are rather childish.

No, danno is a fibber. He uses the same "illegal immigrant encapement" in all of his pro-open borders philosphy and I now I want him to qualify his "experience".

I'm childish and "danno is a fibber". LOL

[acptulsa]

I don't need to make personal insults like you do, I have reason on my side. I never get upset when someone challenges my beliefs because i always have an answer ready.


You're totally brainwashed, period. Keep worshipping your masters, slave.

Fail. But at least you try to keep your head for a minute, unlike others.

[Kraig]

Fail. But at least you try to keep your head for a minute, unlike others.

I was wondering how long it would take you to show up.

[powerofreason]

The only law worth respecting is Natural Law. The only authority worth respecting is the rightful authority of the private property owner.

Why?

Because private property is the source of order in the world, not government.

[powerofreason]

I was wondering how long it would take you to show up.

Yep he's just an annoying old man who can't accept new ideas or ones that are improvements on his own. Lets not beat around the bush, thats just the truth.

[Kraig]

Im losing it, there is no refuge from the stupidity ANYWHERE.

[acptulsa]

Yep he's just an annoying old man who can't accept new ideas or ones that are improvements on his own. Lets not beat around the bush, thats just the truth.

Opinions are like hemohrroids, kid.

Want me on board? Prove it can work, even on a small scale, for any length of time. Go for it.

Repeating yourself is not the same as providing proof.

[torchbearer]

People should realize that Ron Paul thinks the borders should be secured only because we have a welfare state.
he believes if we didn't have a welfare state, we'd be begging these people to come here to work.
He stated such in a debate in the GOP primary. it is buried somewhere in my youtube channel.

[powerofreason]

I believe you are full of it. I LIVE in Souther California and I really would LOVE to know of this "illegal immigrant" encapement you speak of. I really would. Tell me. Because I am around illegal immigrants all the time, and I see the fallout very clearly.

So please, do tell. Where and what is this illegal immigrant encapment?

Just as I suspected, you're engaging in collectivist scapegoating. You can't just group people together and blame them for society's problems. People think and act as individuals, not groups.

For the most part, these are poor people seeking a better life for their families. The vast majority of "illegal immigrants" that cross through the southern border (invisible made up line in the sand) are good, well intentioned people. They are not more or less worthy of renting or owning or working on property on this land than you or I. I don't care what the criminal organization known as the US Government says. They are liars murderers and thieves.

[powerofreason]

People should realize that Ron Paul thinks the borders should be secured only because we have a welfare state.
he believes if we didn't have a welfare state, we'd be begging these people to come here to work.
He stated such in a debate in the GOP primary. it is buryied somewhere in my youtube channel.

I know, and thats really disappointing to me that he would take that view. But he does so much good (like with his HR 1207 bill bringing attention to the fed) that I do my best to overlook that.

[powerofreason]

Opinions are like hemohrroids, kid.

Want me on board? Prove it can work, even on a small scale, for any length of time. Go for it.

Repeating yourself is not the same as providing proof.

Read.

The Market For Liberty
For A New Liberty
The Ethics of Liberty
The Left the Right and the State
Chaos Theory
Boundaries of Order

And others too.
Pretty sure all those books are available for free in pdf format, courtesy of the mises institute.

[bobbyw24]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001325----000-.html

8 USC § 1325. Improper entry by alien
How Current is This?
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

[__27__]

PoR,

You're 100% spot on. Don't let the GOP-lites get to you. At one point or another most of us were no different than them. I myself was about as hard line neo-con as you could be, my re-evaluation and transformation took about 3 years. If some take longer, it's okay, but I'd be willing to bet they'll be there eventually.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2009-07-03-top_ten_num5.png

[Danke]

The only law worth respecting is Natural Law. The only authority worth respecting is the rightful authority of the private property owner.

Why?

Because private property is the source of order in the world, not government.

Who would hold much of this "private property" if it wasn't for the government forcibly taking the land in the past?

[powerofreason]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001325----000-.html

8 USC § 1325. Improper entry by alien
How Current is This?
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

Made up nonsense...

[powerofreason]

Who would hold much of this "private property" if it wasn't for the government forcibly taking the land in the past?

It could be paid for... The native americans loved alcohol and all manner of european things, iike guns, medicines, new foods, animals, etc. And some of the land the Native Americans claimed was theirs may not have been. There needs to be a clearly visible improvement to the land and clear boundaries in order for homesteading rules to be met.

[moostraks]

Once again, receiving stolen money is not a crime, but if a person comes looking for their property the recipient has to give it back and would be entitled to go after the giver of the property if there was some type of payment for a service involved instead of the property being a simple no strings attached gift.

Aiding and abetting in regards to receipt of stolen goods especially since they are knowledgable of the crimes being perpetrated and encouraging the behavior. Crossing over without going through the necessary channels is an affront to all those who abide by a nation's laws and do things legally.


A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/aiding_abetting_accessory.html

[newbitech]

their both at the same time.

[powerofreason]

Aiding and abetting in regards to receipt of stolen goods especially since they are knowledgable of the crimes being perpetrated and encouraging the behavior. Crossing over without going through the necessary channels is an affront to all those who abide by a nation's laws and do things legally.

I don't care about made up laws. I only follow the rules of the criminal organization known as the US Government in two instances:

1. If the law is also a natural law (those rules discoverable by logic and reason; necessary to avoid human suffering)
2. To avoid penalties if I think I may be caught.

Why don't you prove that the US Government's laws are legitimate. Prove these criminals ought to have authority over me. You can't. Its not possible using reason.

[Feenix566]

Crossing over without going through the necessary channels is an affront to all those who abide by a nation's laws and do things legally.


Really?

Do you know what the immigration law even says?

[powerofreason]

their both at the same time.

Only if you believe in made up legal fictions.

[powerofreason]

http://wiki.freetalklive.com/images/2/28/1892_Pledge_of_Allegiance2.jpg

The original fascists.

[Kraig]

lmao no one is even interested in the other thread!

[newbitech]

Only if you believe in made up legal fictions.

Tell you what, I'll bring my tent over to your house and camp out in your backyard indefinitely, use your water supply, plant a garden and raise my family there.

Fair enough?

[powerofreason]

Aiding and abetting in regards to receipt of stolen goods especially since they are knowledgable of the crimes being perpetrated and encouraging the behavior. Crossing over without going through the necessary channels is an affront to all those who abide by a nation's laws and do things legally.

Not wrong to not act on that information. Prove that it is.

If they're not actively participating in criminal activity they're not doing anything wrong. Prove that they are.

[powerofreason]

Tell you what, I'll bring my tent over to your house and camp out in your backyard indefinitely, use your water supply, plant a garden and raise my family there.

Fair enough?

That would be violating my property rights, so no.

[moostraks]

Really?



Yes, really. I would venture a guess I am not the only person who has sought to leave the US and realized it is easier said then done to seek the citizenship of another country. Henceforth, keeping US citizens hostage to abide by the laws while illegals reap the benefits of the taxes is grossly offensive. Jump through whatever hoops are necessary for the respective country and reap the benefits.

[powerofreason]

Yes, really. I would venture a guess I am not the only person who has sought to leave the US and realized it is easier said then done to seek the citizenship of another country. Henceforth, keeping US citizens hostage to abide by the laws while illegals reap the benefits of the taxes is grossly offensive. Jump through whatever hoops are necessary for the respective country and reap the benefits.

Who is actually doing wrong against you?

THE "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" OR THE GOVERNMENT?

How blind are you?

[muh_roads]

300 million in America isn't enough. I say we let all 6 billion people in.

http://www.aslimasti.com/images/fun/it_happens/overloaded_train_hanging_india.jpg

http://www.treehugger.com/crowded-bus.jpg

http://www.rafahtoday.org/newsphotos/07/july/3/gaza02.jpg

[powerofreason]

300 million in America isn't enough. I say we let all 6 billion people in.

They would of course have to buy or rent their property. If there isn't enough property they're out of luck. No one disputes that.

[Feenix566]

You're right, Paladin. Those brown people are scary. They probably smell bad, too. We should do everything we can to keep them out....

[powerofreason]

Thank you Paladin, for showing us inside the mind of a racist.

[newbitech]

That would be violating my property rights, so no.

property rights? but the land and water isn't owned by anyone, what made up law are you referring to?

[muh_roads]

Thank you Paladin, for showing us inside the mind of a racist.

People aren't entitled to citizenship anywhere they please just like they aren't entitled to health care. Or are you a globalist?

[moostraks]

Not wrong to not act on that information. Prove that it is.

If they're not actively participating in criminal activity they're not doing anything wrong. Prove that they are.

Any adult is aware of their citizen status and the laws regarding citizenship. This globalist mindset tripe just gives nwo the capacity to destroy all respective cultures. Enjoy helping out your keepers.

Your philosophy is the same one embraced by the europeans. It worked well for the native americans. How is that culture doing again???

[powerofreason]

property rights? but the land and water isn't owned by anyone, what made up law are you referring to?

I own all the land and water inside of my property boundary.

[newbitech]

I own all the land and water inside of my property boundary dope.


what that invisible line? would you please cite the made up law you are referring to that defines "your property" please?

[powerofreason]

Any adult is aware of their citizen status and the laws regarding citizenship. This globalist mindset tripe just gives nwo the capacity to destroy all respective cultures. Enjoy helping out your keepers.

Your philosophy is the same one embraced by the europeans. It worked well for the native americans. How is that culture doing again???

Why should I have to follow the laws? Just tell me? Or can you not answer this simple question without resorting to NWO paranoia? I am for individual liberty, not one world government, bud.

[moostraks]

I own all the land and water inside of my property boundary dope.

Says who? Formerly it belonged to the earth and was utilized by native americans. If you really respected the rights of the individual you would return it to its rightful owners.:p

[moostraks]

Why should I have to follow the laws? Just tell me? Or can you not answer this simple question without resorting to NWO paranoia? I am for individual liberty, not one world government, bud.

Who says you own the land that you reside on? There is no liberty without mutual respect.

[familydog]

Only if you believe in made up legal fictions.

Are human beings a tribal creature?

[JordanL]

This is what you call a "straw man" argument.

The people who get hurt by immigration reform are unfortunate. However that is not the issue, and bending the rule of law, or more importantly, the sovereignty of the citizens (rather than the government) of a nation is both ridiculous and dangerous.

In other words, your argument has nothing to do with the topic you're relating it to. And thus is easily ignored.

[powerofreason]

Says who? Formerly it belonged to the earth and was utilized by native americans. If you really respected the rights of the individual you would return it to its rightful owners.:p

Prove that it belonged to the earth. Prove that it was wrongly taken from the Native Americans. I will be waiting.

[powerofreason]

People aren't entitled to citizenship anywhere they please just like they aren't entitled to health care. Or are you a globalist?

People are allowed to buy or rent property anywhere they please providing there is a willing seller/landlord.

[powerofreason]

what that invisible line? would you please cite the made up law you are referring to that defines "your property" please?

Natural Law (the laws discoverable through logic and reason; followed in order to avoid human suffering). It is not an invisible line because my property boundaries are clearly marked.

[newbitech]

Prove that it belonged to the earth. Prove that it was wrongly taken from the Native Americans. I will be waiting.


lol, you anarchist are a trip I tell ya.

Prove what and to whom? Its all made up bullshit anyways right?

[powerofreason]

Who says you own the land that you reside on? There is no liberty without mutual respect.

Natural Law. In other words, common sense. Its all based on the Non-Aggression Principle. Unless there is something mentally wrong with you and you want human suffering in the form of disorder.

[powerofreason]

Are human beings a tribal creature?

Wtf is that supposed to mean?

[powerofreason]

lol, you anarchist are a trip I tell ya.

Prove what and to whom? Its all made up bullshit anyways right?

To a statist, I suppose. You guys aren't used to utilizing logic and reason, huh.

[newbitech]

Natural Law (the laws discoverable through logic and reason; followed in order to avoid human suffering). It is not an invisible line because my property boundaries are clearly marked.

So this made up law of yours, how long did it take you to come to the logical conclusion and reason that you owned the land that I am now camped out on. If I reason long enough can I reason me up some property to live on too?

[newbitech]

To a statist, I suppose. You guys aren't used to utilizing logic and reason, huh.


So now you are a statist? lol. W/e man. Clearly you only respect what is happening in your own head and have no respect for what is going on around you.

This philosophical bullshit is a complete waste of time.

Logic and reason tell me that poor people from other countries shouldn't be allowed to displace the poor people in this country without permission.

The law says you can't step on my property or the property of anyone in my community or the property that the community shares without permission.

Deal with it.

[powerofreason]

So this made up law of yours, how long did it take you to come to the logical conclusion and reason that you owned the land that I am now camped out on. If I reason long enough can I reason me up some property to live on too?

Its not just made up out of thin air. Ethics are discoverable by logic and reason. They are rules that need to be followed to preserve order in the world and avoid human suffering. If you don't want order and want human suffering you are probably mentally ill and are definitely an enemy of all people who wish to live in harmony with others (that is, the vast majority of people).

[powerofreason]

So now you are a statist? lol. W/e man. Clearly you only respect what is happening in your own head and have no respect for what is going on around you.

No. Why do you say that?


This philosophical bullshit is a complete waste of time.

Its reality. Property rights must be observed for civilized society to be.


Logic and reason tell me that poor people from other countries shouldn't be allowed to displace the poor people in this country without permission.

How are they being displaced? Are they moving into their homes and kicking them out?


The law says you can't step on my property or the property of anyone in my community or the property that the community shares without permission.

Deal with it.

No. Why should I?

[newbitech]

Its not just made up out of thin air. Ethics are discoverable by logic and reason. They are rules that need to be followed to preserve order in the world and avoid human suffering. If you don't want order and want human suffering you are probably mentally ill and are definitely an enemy of all people who wish to live in harmony with others (that is, the vast majority of people).

And these rules, who gets to decide what rules are logical and reasonable?

Why don't you invite some of those folks over to my camp in your backyard? Its all peace and harmony until its your back yard getting invaded huh?>

[familydog]

Wtf is that supposed to mean?

Your abrasiveness undermines your arguments.

My question warrants an answer. Please consider it.

[powerofreason]

This is what you call a "straw man" argument.

The people who get hurt by immigration reform are unfortunate. However that is not the issue, and bending the rule of law, or more importantly, the sovereignty of the citizens (rather than the government) of a nation is both ridiculous and dangerous.

In other words, your argument has nothing to do with the topic you're relating it to. And thus is easily ignored.

Above post does not make sense. No ones rights are violated by free travelers crossing an invisible line.

[JordanL]

Its not just made up out of thin air. Ethics are discoverable by logic and reason. They are rules that need to be followed to preserve order in the world and avoid human suffering. If you don't want order and want human suffering you are probably mentally ill and are definitely an enemy of all people who wish to live in harmony with others (that is, the vast majority of people).

That only makes logical sense if other people's prosperity is logically your concern.

And that is quite a leap.

Using nothing but logic and reason, you have to make two very big leaps to conclude that Natural Law, as you describe it, is inherently important to every member of the species:

1. That people logically should be concerned with the prosperity of others.

2. That the burden of action falls on those with the most resources, instead of the most capable.

Those are two very large leaps.

If you want a formal logical argument, I'll have one with you. But be warned, I will pick apart every single sentence to point out logical flaws.

If that's what you really want, then let's go.


Above post does not make sense. No ones rights are violated by free travelers crossing an invisible line.

Absolutely they are. I have a right to personal property. That's even a part of the Natural Law you were describing. Illegal aliens are people, by definition, who enter a community without agreeing to the rules of self governance, and thus by definition either directly or indirectly relieve people who had no part in the illegal alien's decision of their private property.

[powerofreason]

Your abrasiveness undermines your arguments.

My question warrants an answer. Please consider it.

Clarify what you mean. Are you saying that a coercive monopoly on law is required for civilization? Because that is not true. Property rights create order.

I recommend you read The Boundaries of Order, by Butler Shaffer. Very good book.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Conservatives need to stop calling them illegal aliens. That just sounds X files to the average person. Instead call them illegal Nation Dividers.

[newbitech]

No. Why do you say that?

Its reality. Property rights must be observed for civilized society to be.


How are they being displaced? Are they moving into their homes and kicking them out?


No. Why should I?

You are the one called the law made up. And you are the one who also said a statist would consider a law made up. See?

No philosophy is not reality. Logic and reason that only goes as far as the inside walls of your cranium is not reality.

They are being displaced because jobs, housing, education, medical care, and charity that would otherwise go to this nations poor and disabled are being soaked up by people who are here without our permission. That's how.

Because THAT my friend IS reality.

[newbitech]

Above post does not make sense. No ones rights are violated by free travelers crossing an invisible line.


lol. So I'll just camp out in your backyard for a little while, I won't be here long enough to violate your rights. I'm just a traveling gypsy.

[moostraks]

Natural Law. In other words, common sense. Its all based on the Non-Aggression Principle. Unless there is something mentally wrong with you and you want human suffering in the form of disorder.

No-your land was originally aggressively removed from the native americans that resided here. Read some history. Listen to the elders of the indian nations that keep the history. This will be our history to repeat if we don't understand the past. Native Americans and their culture were obliterated due to pure unadulterated greed and the need for the encroaching culture to conquer and usurp that which did not belong to them. The same applies here.

There is nothing wrong with my mental status. If you want to help someone then go fight the humanitarian war on their turf. I don't believe in enabling criminal behavior. You do not understand the folly of that which you chose to fight for as you appear to refuse to learn from the past.

[Kraig]

You are the one called the law made up. And you are the one who also said a statist would consider a law made up. See?

No philosophy is not reality. Logic and reason that only goes as far as the inside walls of your cranium is not reality.

They are being displaced because jobs, housing, education, medical care, and charity that would otherwise go to this nations poor and disabled are being soaked up by people who are hear without our permission. That's how.

Because THAT my friend IS reality.

Yet I don't submit to your authority to grant permission or anyone else included in your "our".

That is also reality. :)

[powerofreason]

That only makes logical sense if other people's prosperity is logically your concern.

And that is quite a leap.

I want maximum prosperity for all.


Using nothing but logic and reason, you have to make two very big leaps to conclude that Natural Law, as you describe it, is inherently important to every member of the species:

Nah.


1. That people logically should be concerned with the prosperity of others.

Nope. Only with the prosperity of themselves. In order to increase one's wealth one must live in harmony with others, trade on voluntary terms, do everything on voluntary terms. In a free society crime does not pay.


2. That the burden of action falls on those with the most resources, instead of the most capable.

Explain further.


Those are two very large leaps.

If you want a formal logical argument, I'll have one with you. But be warned, I will pick apart every single sentence to point out logical flaws.

If that's what you really want, then let's go.

I don't have time for that. Informal logical arguments will do. Posts ought to be simple enough and concise enough for the average observer to understand. Thats partially why I participate in these forums. To help educate lurkers and the ones that aren't directly arguing with me.

[JordanL]

powerofreason: I have a question for you. If you make the assertion that nations are merely invisible, (and presumably meaningless) lines, and you also make the point the private property rights must be respected in order to construct your argument, how is your private property any less of an invisible line? What makes it different?

That you have a fence? Because then we can just put a fence along the border, and suddenly the logic of your argument reverses.

[Kraig]

powerofreason: I have a question for you. If you make the assertion that nations are merely invisible, (and presumably meaningless) lines, and you also make the point the private property rights must be respected in order to construct your argument, how is your private property any less of an invisible line? What makes it different?

That you have a fence? Because then we can just put a fence along the border, and suddenly the logic of your argument reverses.

Private property is mixing your labor with natural resources. Borders for the most part are in the middle of nowhere.

[heavenlyboy34]

powerofreason: I have a question for you. If you make the assertion that nations are merely invisible, (and presumably meaningless) lines, and you also make the point the private property rights must be respected in order to construct your argument, how is your private property any less of an invisible line? What makes it different?

That you have a fence? Because then we can just put a fence along the border, and suddenly the logic of your argument reverses.

My answer: It is protected by a private owner who has a monopoly on violence in that specific area.

[newbitech]

Yet I don't submit to your authority to grant permission or anyone else included in your "our".

That is also reality. :)

Yes you do, and you complain about it all the time.
Are you still in denial?

[moostraks]

Private property is mixing your labor with natural resources. Borders for the most part are in the middle of nowhere.

Tell that to the Texans who are having their fences tore down to cross the invisible boundary lines...

[powerofreason]

No-your land was originally aggressively removed from the native americans that resided here. Read some history.

1. How do you know that for sure?
2. Wasn't a good quantity of land purchased on voluntary terms from the Indians? I realize most of it was probably stolen.
3. If they don't come to reclaim their land I have no responsibiltiy to seek them out and return it to them


Listen to the elders of the indian nations that keep the history. This will be our history to repeat if we don't understand the past. Native Americans and their culture were obliterated due to pure unadulterated greed and the need for the encroaching culture to conquer and usurp that which did not belong to them. The same applies here.

Haha no. The "illegal immigrants" are not stealing from anybody. LOL racist.


There is nothing wrong with my mental status. If you want to help someone then go fight the humanitarian war on their turf. I don't believe in enabling criminal behavior. You do not understand the folly of that which you chose to fight for as you appear to refuse to learn from the past.

Enabling criminal behavior? Thats you bud, by endorsing the legitimacy of the government you enable criminal behavior. The US Government is the largest and most dangerous criminal organization in the world.

[paulitics]

powerofreason: I have a question for you. If you make the assertion that nations are merely invisible, (and presumably meaningless) lines, and you also make the point the private property rights must be respected in order to construct your argument, how is your private property any less of an invisible line? What makes it different?

That you have a fence? Because then we can just put a fence along the border, and suddenly the logic of your argument reverses.

They don't beilieve in law, any law. They are anarchists first and foremost.

[powerofreason]

Private property is mixing your labor with natural resources. Borders for the most part are in the middle of nowhere.

Thanks, somehow I missed that post. I will add that governments do not own anything they claim to possess because all that property is STOLEN.

[powerofreason]

Keep em coming, statists and racists/ethnocentrists. I can keep this up all day between reading The Boundaries of Order. And oh yea, eating my delicious pizza too. :)

[JordanL]

I want maximum prosperity for all.

No one cares what you want. That's not even remotely what we're discussing.


Nah.

This is a Burden of Proof fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html).


Nope. Only with the prosperity of themselves. In order to increase one's wealth one must live in harmony with others, trade on voluntary terms, do everything on voluntary terms. In a free society crime does not pay.

This is a combination of several fallacies, however the one most prominent is False Dilemma (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html).

Your statement is a value judgement, and is thus entirely subjective, and can be neither deductive nor inductive logic.

Thus the argument is itself illogical.

Illogical doesn't mean false, but I find it hilarious that you disputed the point that you have to generalize a value judgement to provide a foundation for your logic by generalizing a value judgement to provide a foundation for your logic.


Explain further.

In the argument you are positing, illegal aliens deserve preferrential treatment because they have less resources to provide themselves with. However, the citizens of the rest of the country which have more resources with which to provide are less capable to provide for the illegal alien, as it is impossible for any of them to ensure that the illegal alien makes good decisions for themselves.

The citizen has more resources, the illegal alien is more capable. Your entire argument is based on the idea that those with resources have a greater requirement to provide for their community than others, which is itself the definition of socialism, so you either don't understand Libertarianism, or you don't actually believe it.


I don't have time for that. Informal logical arguments will do. Posts ought to be simple enough and concise enough for the average observer to understand. Thats partially why I participate in these forums. To help educate lurkers and the ones that aren't directly arguing with me.

That's an awfully arrogant and silly attitude to take, especially when you don't seem to understand your own argument very well.

[JordanL]

My answer: It is protected by a private owner who has a monopoly on violence in that specific area.

By that logic, governments very clearly own their land, as they have a pretty irrefutable monopoly on violence in it.

I am not a pro-government person, but I am sad that so few here can answer this question without drawing into circular logic.

[moostraks]

1. How do you know that for sure?
2. Wasn't a good quantity of land purchased on voluntary terms from the Indians? I realize most of it was probably stolen.
3. If they don't come to reclaim their land I have no responsibiltiy to seek them out and return it to them


Haha no. The "illegal immigrants" are not stealing from anybody. LOL racist.


Enabling criminal behavior? Thats you bud, by endorsing the legitimacy of the government you enable criminal behavior. The US Government is the largest and most dangerous criminal organization in the world.

Wow the depths of your logic are overwhelming. So if a property holder, such as a taxpayer who is being forced to care for non-citizens stands up for their property rights (taxes used) they are a racist? Yet you by your own admission acknowledge that you may or may not have property taken through force, but that is okay and you are a humanitarian? Tell you what, since you are willing to relinquish your ill gotten goods to a native american I will more than willingly aid you in returning this property.

By acknowledging you have a claim to your property you uphold the condition that your purchase or contract for loan (rent) has some legal validity. You negate your own arguments...

[JordanL]

lol

I find it funny that your screen name is "power of reason". It's like you're trying to be a bad caricature.

[powerofreason]

No one cares what you want. That's not even remotely what we're discussing.



This is a Burden of Proof fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html).



This is a combination of several fallacies, however the one most prominent is False Dilemma (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html).

Your statement is a value judgement, and is thus entirely subjective, and can be neither deductive nor inductive logic.

Thus the argument is itself illogical.

Illogical doesn't mean false, but I find it hilarious that you disputed the point that you have to generalize a value judgement to provide a foundation for your logic by generalizing a value judgement to provide a foundation for your logic.



In the argument you are positing, illegal aliens deserve preferrential treatment because they have less resources to provide themselves with. However, the citizens of the rest of the country which have more resources with which to provide are less capable to provide for the illegal alien, as it is impossible for any of them to ensure that the illegal alien makes good decisions for themselves.

The citizen has more resources, the illegal alien is more capable. Your entire argument is based on the idea that those with resources have a greater requirement to provide for their community than others, which is itself the definition of socialism, so you either don't understand Libertarianism, or you don't actually believe it.



That's an awfully arrogant and silly attitude to take, especially when you don't seem to understand your own argument very well.

Lmao. Thats rich. I'm not going to be bogged down talking about logical fallacies with a STATIST. Thats just crazy irony there. Maybe if I was debating theory on Forums of the Libertarian Left (http://libertarianleft.freeforums.org/index.php) but not on RPF's. Why don't you lay out your ridiculous justifications of tyranny there? That would be quite funny to see you annihilated there. I will admit I'm only 18, not a college grad and I can't be quite as intellectual sounding as I would want to be. Thats why there's tons of highly intellectual pro-freedom literature out there for people like you to read, people that prefer to see it all spelled out for them. I would recommend The Boundaries of Order or For A New Liberty for you. Or even Democracy: The God that Failed.

[newbitech]

By that logic, governments very clearly own their land, as they have a pretty irrefutable monopoly on violence in it.

I am not a pro-government person, but I am sad that so few here can answer this question without drawing into circular logic.

I am pretty sure that because we are in a lull period of the election cycle and all that is really happening is a few possible senate runs and HR1207, most of the people on this forum who made this such a great place are out doing stuff and taking care of families before the next wave of activity.

In the mean time, the anarchist have surfaced to attempt to exert their influence.

It's just a lull, don't worry about, lots of people understand that it is wrong to allow our society to be overrun by people who refuse to follow the rules.

[powerofreason]

By that logic, governments very clearly own their land, as they have a pretty irrefutable monopoly on violence in it.

I am not a pro-government person, but I am sad that so few here can answer this question without drawing into circular logic.

He should have said rightful monopoly on violence. Which is obtained by voluntarily trading for the land or homesteading an unowned piece of land.

[powerofreason]

lol

I find it funny that your screen name is "power of reason". It's like you're trying to be a bad caricature.

Ok statist. I'm not a statist, therefore I'm way ahead of you.

[newbitech]

Ok statist. I'm not a statist, therefore I'm way ahead of you.

sounds like you are a bandwagon anarchist.

[JordanL]

Lmao. Thats rich. I'm not going to be bogged down talking about logical fallacies with a STATIST. Thats just crazy irony there. Maybe if I was debating theory on Forums of the Libertarian Left (http://libertarianleft.freeforums.org/index.php) but not on RPF's. Why don't you lay out your ridiculous justifications of tyranny there? That would be quite funny to see you annihilated there. I will admit I'm only 18, not a college grad and I can't be quite as intellectual sounding as I would want to be. Thats why there's tons of highly intellectual pro-freedom literature out there for people like you to read, people that prefer to see it all spelled out for them. I would recommend The Boundaries of Order or For A New Liberty for you. Or even Democracy: The God that Failed.

So your response to my argument is "I don't have to listen to you, because I assume that you're part of group A, and all people in group A have invalid opinions".

I have no idea why you were begging someone to debate logic with you if you just turned your tail and ran at an even halfhearted attempt.

Oh well. I can match your argument on a level you'll understand I suppose.

"lol. you're a socialist. you probably like hate jesus and everything. I bet you would have loved Hitler. lol. too bad you're like 12 years old or something."

I suppose this forum has really fallen off since the elections. *sigh*

Oh well, it's not like I have any faith left to lose in humanity.

EDIT:

Just letting you know, this isn't worth my time. You're not worth my time. I won't be coming back to this thread to read anything else you post, so don't bother replying.

[ChaosControl]

I'll agree with you TC, I don't really have a problem with illegals anymore. I used to be hardcore anti-illegal immigration. But really they aren't the problem, heck they already do what I tell others to do. Defy federal law and stop paying taxes. Good for them. :)

[powerofreason]

Wow the depths of your logic are overwhelming. So if a property holder, such as a taxpayer who is being forced to care for non-citizens stands up for their property rights (taxes used) they are a racist? Yet you by your own admission acknowledge that you may or may not have property taken through force, but that is okay and you are a humanitarian? Tell you what, since you are willing to relinquish your ill gotten goods to a native american I will more than willingly aid you in returning this property.

By acknowledging you have a claim to your property you uphold the condition that your purchase or contract for loan (rent) has some legal validity. You negate your own arguments...

Private law. Not shitty public law.


Tax is theft btw. Take it up with the thieves, not the poor immigrants seeking a better life in this land.

[powerofreason]

I'll agree with you TC, I don't really have a problem with illegals anymore. I used to be hardcore anti-illegal immigration. But really they aren't the problem, heck they already do what I tell others to do. Defy federal law and stop paying taxes. Good for them. :)

Word!

[powerofreason]

sounds like you are a bandwagon anarchist.

Haha not at all. I've been an anarchist for well over a year now. And I know my shit. Because I read. Unlike you.

[powerofreason]

So your response to my argument is "I don't have to listen to you, because I assume that you're part of group A, and all people in group A have invalid opinions".

I have no idea why you were begging someone to debate logic with you if you just turned your tail and ran at an even halfhearted attempt.

Oh well. I can match your argument on a level you'll understand I suppose.

"lol. you're a socialist. you probably like hate jesus and everything. I bet you would have loved Hitler. lol. too bad you're like 12 years old or something."

I suppose this forum has really fallen off since the elections. *sigh*

Oh well, it's not like I have any faith left to lose in humanity.

EDIT:

Just letting you know, this isn't worth my time. You're not worth my time. I won't be coming back to this thread to read anything else you post, so don't bother replying.

Good riddance. Spread your statist filth somewhere else, like the obama forums. Yea I really begged people to have a nitpicky logic debate with me. FAIL.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I'll agree with you TC, I don't really have a problem with illegals anymore. I used to be hardcore anti-illegal immigration. But really they aren't the problem, heck they already do what I tell others to do. Defy federal law and stop paying taxes. Good for them. :)

and destroy the economic and social fabric of America.

[Chieppa1]

Haha not at all. I've been an anarchist for well over a year now. And I know my shit. Because I read. Unlike you.

Correction. He doesn't read....YOUR books. And how do you know he doesn't read? Logic and Reason?

[newbitech]

Haha not at all. I've been an anarchist for well over a year now. And I know my shit. Because I read. Unlike you.

Its easy to "know your shit" when "your shit" is anarchy.

Anarchy = fuck the police, fuck the law, end the government, ____ rights!, down with rules unless they are MY rules, down with logic and reasoning unless its MY logic and reasoning, the world sucks you suck, I like pie and kittens.

The end.

[Chieppa1]

and destroy the economic and social fabric of America.

The economic and social fabric of America is fucked up and needs to be somewhat destroyed. An Economy based on theft. And a society based on exclusion.

[powerofreason]

Correction. He doesn't read....YOUR books. And how do you know he doesn't read? Logic and Reason?

Yea pretty much. Because he sounds like a tard.

[Chieppa1]

Its easy to "know your shit" when "your shit" is anarchy.

Anarchy = fuck the police, fuck the law, end the government, ____ rights!, down with rules unless they are MY rules, down with logic and reasoning unless its MY logic and reasoning, the world sucks you suck, I like pie and kittens.

The end.

Um... I'm pretty sure kittens are STATISTS! Like everyone else....:p

[heavenlyboy34]

By that logic, governments very clearly own their land, as they have a pretty irrefutable monopoly on violence in it.

I am not a pro-government person, but I am sad that so few here can answer this question without drawing into circular logic.

You're right. Therein is the evil of the State, and one reason why it must be dismantled.

[heavenlyboy34]

Its easy to "know your shit" when "your shit" is anarchy.

Anarchy = fuck the police, fuck the law, end the government, ____ rights!, down with rules unless they are MY rules, down with logic and reasoning unless its MY logic and reasoning, the world sucks you suck, I like pie and kittens.

The end.

False. Your ignorance is greatly amusing, though. :D

[powerofreason]

and destroy the economic and social fabric of America.

Typical conservative nonsense. Why don't you worry about the government destroying the economic and social fabric of the country. Don't they steal 4+ trillion dollars out of the economy yearly? Don't they infringe upon property rights causing tremendous problems in our society? Immigrants are the last thing you should be worried about.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Its easy to "know your shit" when "your shit" is anarchy.

Anarchy = fuck the police, fuck the law, end the government, ____ rights!, down with rules unless they are MY rules, down with logic and reasoning unless its MY logic and reasoning, the world sucks you suck, I like pie and kittens.

The end.

You're quoting Ron Paul. That speech was very memorable. If I could only find the you tube link :rolleyes:

[RevolutionSD]

This is the post I posted in the other active thread on so called "illegal immigrants". It was deleted because I was told that OP's have judgement over what is off-topic and can request deletes. Clearly, my post was embarrassing to this person. I will always tell it how it is. No euphemisms, no BS. Just logical consistency and the utmost respect for the sovereignty of the individual.



These people are human beings, just like you or I. They have the same rights, natural law does not discriminate. It is not wrong for free travelers to cross an invisible line. It is not wrong for people to receive stolen money. Theoretically, if the victim of theft comes looking for their stolen money the recipient wouid have to give it back. Of course, all the money is mixed up so thats not really possible. Nevertheless, no wrongdoing is being done by these people.

+1000!

You're exactly right. "Illegal immigration" is just another distraction issue to keep people from looking at who the real criminals are, the government- who would not exist without the threat of violence.

The problem is the SYSTEM, not the recipients. Get rid of government, solve the problem.

[powerofreason]

Its easy to "know your shit" when "your shit" is anarchy.

Anarchy = fuck the police, fuck the law, end the government, ____ rights!, down with rules unless they are MY rules, down with logic and reasoning unless its MY logic and reasoning, the world sucks you suck, I like pie and kittens.

The end.

Lets make that a true statement.

Anarchy= fuck the (public) police, fuck the (public) law, end the government, respect rights, down with rules (unless they come from a private property owner), down with your faulty logic and reasoning, you suck.

The end.

[Chieppa1]

Yea pretty much. Because he sounds like a tard.

Well, to you. Your opinion is not the definition of logic.

Its funny, I totally agree with you about the actual topic of this thread. But, since your acting like a intellectual who feels he's better then everyone else....I lean towards disliking you. My opinion on you, does that mean it can't be argued and I am 100% correct in my logic? Or does that "power of reason" only apply to you?

[heavenlyboy34]

+1000!

You're exactly right. "Illegal immigration" is just another distraction issue to keep people from looking at who the real criminals are, the government- who would not exist without the threat of violence.

The problem is the SYSTEM, not the recipients. Get rid of government, solve the problem.

W00T!!! :D:):cool:

[mediahasyou]

The system is about to break because of the system not because of illegals.

[newbitech]

Correction. He doesn't read....YOUR books. And how do you know he doesn't read? Logic and Reason?


What is funny is that I love mises and I read books there as much as I can, they are free in more ways than one.

But you have to understand the anarchist is the ultimate parasite. The anarchist has no concept of mutual understanding. The anarchist latches on to the idea of freedom and begins to construct his/her ideal world based on personal values and ignores the freedom of others to build a mutually acceptable society. Sacrifice? Forget it. Compromise? No way. UNLESS, there is something the anarchist can get out of it. What is sad is that the anarchist philosophy appeals to the natural tendency of youthful rebellion against fabricated authority.

Once the uninitiated youth get caught up in the historical debate of freedom vs tyranny, the anarchist philosophy feeds on the enthusiasm and begins to infect the logic and reasoning of the youth with the idea that ALL authority is tyranny.
You can see the feeding on the youth across the entire political spectrum and it is quite disgusting.

The middle of the road I believe is Ron Paul's campaign for liberty. This movement doesn't take advantage of youthful ignorance like Obama, and it doesn't take advantage of youthful exuberance like anarchist. Rather, the Ron Paul movement focuses the insatiable desire for knowledge that most people (especially young people) have on the defiance of false authority.

powerofreason is in the right place, he just needs to sharpen up the edges and that is why I participate in these types of forum debates. He may be defiant on the surface, but this is his initiation into the process. He as well as other unseasoned anarchist will have to learn compromise, mutual understanding, and respect for other people's experience and opinions in order to be a successful participant in any society.

[powerofreason]

Well, to you. Your opinion is not the definition of logic.

Its funny, I totally agree with you about the actual topic of this thread. But, since your acting like a intellectual who feels he's better then everyone else....I lean towards disliking you. My opinion on you, does that mean it can't be argued and I am 100% correct in my logic? Or does that "power of reason" only apply to you?

Like I said, I only speak what I believe to be the truth. I don't mean to come across as arrogant but thats sort of inevitable for people who believe in objective ethics.

[newbitech]

Yea pretty much. Because he sounds like a tard.

hah, yet you admit that you cannot participate in intellectual discussions. When you can get past the name calling maybe we can converse, until then I stand by my original response.

there are indeed illegal aliens.

[newbitech]

False. Your ignorance is greatly amusing, though. :D

I try to be ignorant of chaos but thanks to you and quite of few others its pretty hard to ignore. Thanks for reminding me yet again that you disagree with everything except for people who also disagree with everything.

[__27__]

What is funny is that I love mises and I read books there as much as I can, they are free in more ways than one.

But you have to understand the anarchist is the ultimate parasite. The anarchist has no concept of mutual understanding. The anarchist latches on to the idea of freedom and begins to construct his/her ideal world based on personal values and ignores the freedom of others to build a mutually acceptable society. Sacrifice? Forget it. Compromise? No way. UNLESS, there is something the anarchist can get out of it. What is sad is that the anarchist philosophy appeals to the natural tendency of youthful rebellion against fabricated authority.

Once the uninitiated youth get caught up in the historical debate of freedom vs tyranny, the anarchist philosophy feeds on the enthusiasm and begins to infect the logic and reasoning of the youth with the idea that ALL authority is tyranny.
You can see the feeding on the youth across the entire political spectrum and it is quite disgusting.

The middle of the road I believe is Ron Paul's campaign for liberty. This movement doesn't take advantage of youthful ignorance like Obama, and it doesn't take advantage of youthful exuberance like anarchist. Rather, the Ron Paul movement focuses the insatiable desire for knowledge that most people (especially young people) have on the defiance of false authority.

powerofreason is in the right place, he just needs to sharpen up the edges and that is why I participate in these types of forum debates. He may be defiant on the surface, but this is his initiation into the process. He as well as other unseasoned anarchist will have to learn compromise, mutual understanding, and respect for other people's experience and opinions in order to be a successful participant in any society.

Sacrifice. Compromise. Mutual understanding. Successful participant in any society.

What do any of these mean when they are coerced with the boot of government? Nothing. You apparently believe that people cannot work together or respect each other in anarchy, because so far as you can reason they cannot or will not without the boot of state forcing them to comply. Any of what you state, or purport to value, is worthless without voluntary mutual consent.

Your ends do not justify the means. Any interaction that is not voluntary is force.

[klamath]

deleted

[powerofreason]

hah, yet you admit that you cannot participate in intellectual discussions. When you can get past the name calling maybe we can converse, until then I stand by my original response.

there are indeed illegal aliens.

Thats not what I said. I said sometimes I don't sound as intellectual as I would like to. I went to government high school, after all. Stop twisting my words. When people decide they don't want to continue an argument or start name calling, thats when I sometimes in the name calling because it can be fun and satisfying. Aren't you the one that just made a trollish post mischaracterizing anarchy? I believe you did.

[__27__]

And I will ask the anarchists once again, how do you hold on to anarchy? The nuts and bolts, not philosophy, nuts and bolts. Please don't give me a list of books to read, use your own words and logic.
If you say change human nature I'm going to tell you true communism would also work because that is the only thing that holds it back.
Since I am a anarchist at heart so this is all you have to do to convince me.

If someone needs to convince you that oppression and coercion are wrong, you are not an anarchist at heart. If you believe that oppression and coercion are wrong, yet find it acceptable to use it to meet your ends, you have lost your principles.

Most of the "libertarians" here seem to lack the ability to feel their own cognitive dissonance. You cannot argue that taxation and socialized programs like universal medicine and welfare are wrong on the basis of force, yet hold that you yourself are willing to use force to see that your political ends are met. You're not against force, you're only for a "more limited use" of force. You're not against collectives, you're only for a "smaller and more well defined collective as defined by me".

[klamath]

deleted

[__27__]

And once again an anarchist can't answer the question.

And once again a statist self-rationalizes his oppression.

[powerofreason]

And I will ask the anarchists once again, how do you hold on to anarchy? The nuts and bolts, not philosophy, nuts and bolts. Please don't give me a list of books to read, use your own words and logic.
If you say change human nature I'm going to tell you true communism would also work because that is the only thing that holds it back.
Since I am a anarchist at heart so this is all you have to do to convince me.

Not changing human nature, thats utopian thinking. What it comes down to is this: you need to realize that order comes from private property, not government. I don't have the time to go into great detail nor would I want to take the effort to if i did have the time. I've done too many posts like that before, repeating yourself gets tiring. Maybe someone else would be interesting in forming such a mega post. You have to realize that government is the largest criminal organization in our society. Its crimes (mostly theft, creating economic chaos through regulations, imprisonment of innocent people, murder around the world) absolutely dwarfs private crime. And the black markets that government creates cause a lot of the private crime that goes on. It is private property that creates order. I will admit I'm not the greatest at explaining that, thats why I always recommend books for people to read, such as The Boundaries of Order by Butler Schaffer which I am reading right now and it gives an excellent explanation on that. Books written by pros that absolutely know what they're talking about and explain it well beats me trying to paraphrase what they say. I can put a lot in my own words too, but its not going to be as convincing or clear.

[familydog]

Clarify what you mean. Are you saying that a coercive monopoly on law is required for civilization? Because that is not true. Property rights create order.

I recommend you read The Boundaries of Order, by Butler Shaffer. Very good book.

Ah, Butler Shaffer. I am a fan of his and I plan on enjoying his latest book soon. Thanks for the recommendation.

You are correct. Property rights create order, among other liberties. You are also correct that government (a coercive monopoly) is unnecesary. One need only read the works of Rothbard to figure this out.

If you are at all familiar with the concept of a tribe (also a form of a coercive monopoly), then you ought to be able to answer my question. The tribe is the oldest and longest-lasting social order for human beings. One can assume that humans will always demand to live in groups. One can also assume that these groups will eventually succumb to a state. In needing to protect its own monopoly and power, the state will create borders and regulate the ebb and flow of "outsiders." Should it? No, but that won't stop it from happening.

In essence, I agree that borders are an unneccesary and dangerous restriction on liberty. I just don't believe (based on human nature) that it will be possible to rid ourselves of them.

[klamath]

deleted

[moostraks]

Private law. Not shitty public law.


Tax is theft btw. Take it up with the thieves, not the poor immigrants seeking a better life in this land.

The original theft of property. That which is also safe guarding you from them reclaiming that which rightfully belongs to them? Massive amounts of land were stolen by europeans as Native Americans were pushed to the edges. Furthermore decreased as utilities then minimalized the lands the european immigrants "allowed" them to have for easements.

In all likelihood the property you own was not fairly traded for, as ownership was a term not necessarily pertinent as Indians used the land in nomadic fashion. THe obliteration of their culture and values is what has allowed the usurpers to bring their values of land ownership and squeeze them out of their own right of usage to their homeland. So you see the european understanding and Native American understanding do not allow for mutual respect and one party was sorely abused due to the lack of respect to the culture of the residing peoples.

The non-citizens are encouraging the theft, the blame lies equally. Once again lack of respect for the residing citizens will lead to genocide and acculturation by the invading culture. We will all be globalists. Way to help the sitting cabal.

I see you are only a humanitarian when it benefits your pet cause of anarchy...No interest in relinquishing your property,eh???

[newbitech]

Sacrifice. Compromise. Mutual understanding. Successful participant in any society.

What do any of these mean when they are coerced with the boot of government? Nothing. You apparently believe that people cannot work together or respect each other in anarchy, because so far as you can reason they cannot or will not without the boot of state forcing them to comply. Any of what you state, or purport to value, is worthless without voluntary mutual consent.

Your ends do not justify the means. Any interaction that is not voluntary is force.

I never said anything like that so I have no idea what the premise of your question is.

I don't believe that, but feel free to ask me what I believe.

[Chieppa1]

Logic and Reason: At the start of human history there was no government. PEOPLE created government. Why? Human nature is to control? I don't know. But logic and reason would dictate that if all government was dissolved and a free society based on Natural Rights was created....eventually some type of government or hierarchy would form? Why? Because its reality.

And no, I'm a not a Statist because I think this is true. I in no way enjoy government or think it serves a purpose in my life. However, logic wold dictate that government of some kind will always spring up.

So have the most limited one possible. And tar and feather anyone who tries to expand it.

[klamath]

deleted

[__27__]

I never said anything like that so I have no idea what the premise of your question is.

I don't believe that, but feel free to ask me what I believe.

You state that these things cannot exist in anarchy. Thus your implication is that the force of state is required for these things to exist.

If this is not your implication, then you need to severely reword your argument. Voluntary mutual consent requires no state authority or force, and is the only equal way for man to interact.

If anyone is a parasite to freedom, it is statists who pose as freedom lovers.

[powerofreason]

Ah, Butler Shaffer. I am a fan of his and I plan on enjoying his latest book soon. Thanks for the recommendation.

You are correct. Property rights create order, among other liberties. You are also correct that government (a coercive monopoly) is unnecesary. One need only read the works of Rothbard to figure this out.

If you are at all familiar with the concept of a tribe (also a form of a coercive monopoly), then you ought to be able to answer my question. The tribe is the oldest and longest-lasting social order for human beings. One can assume that humans will always demand to live in groups. One can also assume that these groups will eventually succumb to a state. In needing to protect its own monopoly and power, the state will create borders and regulate the ebb and flow of "outsiders." Should it? No, but that won't stop it from happening.

In essence, I agree that borders are an unneccesary and dangerous restriction on liberty. I just don't believe (based on human nature) that it will be possible to rid ourselves of them.

Interesting thoughts. The way I see it, is that if the State comes back somehow (foreign government intervention seems to be the one real possibility for that to happen) then we're back to square 1. The government will start off with a small amount of legitimacy and will have to slowly gain it. Thats why minarchist fears of a tyrannical government just springing up out of nowhere are unfounded. It would take a massive, overwhelming military presence to force widespread obedience to a fledgling government not seen as legitimate by the people.

[Sandman33]

Immigration is a HUGE problem and I'm tired of people being all pussy about it.

I'M TIRED OF PAYING FOR OTHER PEOPLES SHIT. Plain and simple.

[powerofreason]

Immigration is a HUGE problem and I'm tired of people being all pussy about it.

I'M TIRED OF PAYING FOR OTHER PEOPLES SHIT. Plain and simple.

You're not angry at the people actually stealing from you? You're angry at who they're giving it to? Give me a break. That doesn't even make sense.

[__27__]

Immigration is a HUGE problem and I'm tired of people being all pussy about it.

I'M TIRED OF PAYING FOR OTHER PEOPLES SHIT. Plain and simple.

Then take out your anger on the system, it is the one taking your money.


If congress passes universal healthcare, anyone using a drug will be taking money out of your pocket because of the care they will need. Does this negate an individuals right to put into their body what they please? Or does it simply mean that the system is fucked up, and an individual still retains his ownership of his own body?

[Chieppa1]

Immigration is a HUGE problem and I'm tired of people being all pussy about it.

I'M TIRED OF PAYING FOR OTHER PEOPLES SHIT. Plain and simple.

Then fix the system, don't attack the people.

[newbitech]

Thats not what I said. I said sometimes I don't sound as intellectual as I would like to. I went to government high school, after all. Stop twisting my words. When people decide they don't want to continue an argument or start name calling, thats when I sometimes in the name calling because it can be fun and satisfying. Aren't you the one that just made a trollish post mischaracterizing anarchy? I believe you did.


Its not just sometimes though, and I didn't think you would mind so much if I used your own words to point out your tard er slowness in understanding. Especially since you were trying to say it was me being slow.

No, I was simply allowing you an inside peek as to my perspective of how I believe you and other anarchist sound, not very intellectual. Do not attempt to accuse me of mis-characterizing anarchy. I completely disagree with chaotic, leaderless society, one without rules and "without rulers".

You can try to convince me that there can be rules without rulers, I am still waiting for that debate. Anarchist aren't willing to engage me on that for some reason. They have tried. I even had an anarchist tell me that he could live his life without rules and at the same time be ruler of himself, all in the same sentence. Go figure.

[dannno]

I believe you are full of it. I LIVE in Souther California and I really would LOVE to know of this "illegal immigrant" encapement you speak of. I really would. Tell me. Because I am around illegal immigrants all the time, and I see the fallout very clearly.

So please, do tell. Where and what is this illegal immigrant encapment?

It was in zip code 92024 behind the giant flower fields on El Camino Real.

Back then, that town produced 98% of the Poinsettias for the whole friggin country.

I didn't quite know the extent of the encampment until I was in college and it was featured in one of my textbooks.

I believe there were tens of thousands of them living back there. My after school daycare facility was within walking distance and we used to ride bikes down near there all the time. Never any problems.

Oh ya, I hate LA. It really sucks. You should just move or something.

[klamath]

deleted

[powerofreason]

Its not just sometimes though, and I didn't think you would mind so much if I used your own words to point out your tard er slowness in understanding. Especially since you were trying to say it was me being slow.

You are slow, because you still don't understand anarchy. I understand statism perfectly. I was a statist most of my life.


No, I was simply allowing you an inside peek as to my perspective of how I believe you and other anarchist sound, not very intellectual. Do not attempt to accuse me of mis-characterizing anarchy. I completely disagree with chaotic, leaderless society, one without rules and "without rulers".

1. Not chaotic.
2. Not leaderless. Ruler-less.
3. With rules (made by private property owners).

What the hell kind of society are you referring to? Certainly not one without government. And I'M the slow one? :rolleyes:


You can try to convince me that there can be rules without rulers, I am still waiting for that debate. Anarchist aren't willing to engage me on that for some reason. They have tried. I even had an anarchist tell me that he could live his life without rules and at the same time be ruler of himself, all in the same sentence. Go figure.

Private law. There are working historical examples of it, lasting many many years, usually ending due to an overwhelming foreign intervention. Medieval Ireland. Iceland circa 1000. The "wild" west. The Pennsylvanian anarchist experiment. The Somalian Xeer, which works great when the UN and US aren't forcing government on them. The Somalian word for government is translated as "the thing."

[newbitech]

You state that these things cannot exist in anarchy. Thus your implication is that the force of state is required for these things to exist.

If this is not your implication, then you need to severely reword your argument. Voluntary mutual consent requires no state authority or force, and is the only equal way for man to interact.

If anyone is a parasite to freedom, it is statists who pose as freedom lovers.

Where did I state that? Show me and I will be glad to correct it. I don't deal in absolutes like that so until you point out where I stated that I will say no you misread.

Even if I did state something like that, there is no implication that "the force of state" is required for those things to exist. That would be you injecting your opinion into a statement that I didn't make.

I do not need to reword anything. Its the use of the word anarchy to define your ideal society that needs to be reconsidered.

I am pretty sure the statist label is attached by anarchist to anyone who disagrees with anarchy, anarchy does not mean anti-state, so it is not the polar opposite.

I am pretty sure it is anarchist who have been the posers on this forum. Its not hard to go back and read the debates between the various anarchist camps on whether or not they should be involved with the Ron Paul campaign.

It also not hard see the difference between freedom without rules and freedom with rules.

[powerofreason]

The Rule of Law without the State

Mises Daily 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

There ya go.

[powerofreason]

Where did I state that? Show me and I will be glad to correct it. I don't deal in absolutes like that so until you point out where I stated that I will say no you misread.

Even if I did state something like that, there is no implication that "the force of state" is required for those things to exist. That would be you injecting your opinion into a statement that I didn't make.

I do not need to reword anything. Its the use of the word anarchy to define your ideal society that needs to be reconsidered.

I am pretty sure the statist label is attached by anarchist to anyone who disagrees with anarchy, anarchy does not mean anti-state, so it is not the polar opposite.

I am pretty sure it is anarchist who have been the posers on this forum. Its not hard to go back and read the debates between the various anarchist camps on whether or not they should be involved with the Ron Paul campaign.

It also not hard see the difference between freedom without rules and freedom with rules.

Anarchy does mean anti-state. No ruler=no state. Duh.

[powerofreason]

Newbitech, you want me to believe the Somali's can do private law but Americans can't? I know you're a little slow but...

[heavenlyboy34]

chirp chirp chirp. The sound of the crickets are deafening.

How many of the books in Conza's sig have you read? That will help you understand. I'm not going to rehash the same old debate until you can demonstrate knowledge of what's already out there in black and white for all to see and absorb.

[__27__]

Where did I state that? Show me and I will be glad to correct it. I don't deal in absolutes like that so until you point out where I stated that I will say no you misread.

Even if I did state something like that, there is no implication that "the force of state" is required for those things to exist. That would be you injecting your opinion into a statement that I didn't make.

I do not need to reword anything. Its the use of the word anarchy to define your ideal society that needs to be reconsidered.

I am pretty sure the statist label is attached by anarchist to anyone who disagrees with anarchy, anarchy does not mean anti-state, so it is not the polar opposite.

I am pretty sure it is anarchist who have been the posers on this forum. Its not hard to go back and read the debates between the various anarchist camps on whether or not they should be involved with the Ron Paul campaign.

It also not hard see the difference between freedom without rules and freedom with rules.

Freedom with rules =/= freedom.

Freedom with rules is your poetic way of stating "you can be free until I decide the boot of government needs to be on your throat." What rationale do you have for using government force on ANYONE? When you can answer that, we may be able to discuss.

[newbitech]

You are slow, because you still don't understand anarchy. I understand statism perfectly. I was a statist most of my life.


1. Not chaotic.
2. Not leaderless. Ruler-less.
3. With rules (made by private property owners).

What the hell kind of society are you referring to? Certainly not one without government. And I'M the slow one? :rolleyes:

Private law. There are working historical examples of it, lasting many many years, usually ending due to an overwhelming foreign intervention. Medieval Ireland. Iceland circa 1000. The "wild" west. The Pennsylvanian anarchist experiment. The Somalian Xeer, which works great when the UN and US aren't forcing government on them. The Somalian word for government is translated as "the thing."

There isn't really a whole lot that needs to be understood about anarchy in this forum other than it is not a viable solution to our current situation. Now an argument can be made that anarchy is a viable outcome if we do not change course, but even if the anarchist did see their dreams of no government, no rules, no leaders, social chaos etc etc, come true it wouldn't last.

1.) yes chaotic, that is the definition. Sorry to be the bearer of the dictionary and accepted definitions. Its just a fact, deal with it.
2.) yes leaderless AND rulerless. You cannot on the one hand use one dictionary to give a definition of anarchy then on the other hand use a different dictionary to give the definition of leader and ruler. Use the same understanding of language for both, please.
3.) So you want no rulers UNLESS they are private property rulers. That is one big ole nasty contradiction. Send me a postcard when you get to that fantasy land.

Anarchy. It is what it is an no amount of thinking or reasoning is going to change that. Sorry, it just wasn't meant to be.

You called yourself that in so many words. Maybe you should be careful what you type?

[klamath]

deleted

[powerofreason]

There isn't really a whole lot that needs to be understood about anarchy in this forum other than it is not a viable solution to our current situation. Now an argument can be made that anarchy is a viable outcome if we do not change course, but even if the anarchist did see their dreams of no government, no rules, no leaders, social chaos etc etc, come true it wouldn't last.

1.) yes chaotic, that is the definition. Sorry to be the bearer of the dictionary and accepted definitions. Its just a fact, deal with it.
2.) yes leaderless AND rulerless. You cannot on the one hand use one dictionary to give a definition of anarchy then on the other hand use a different dictionary to give the definition of leader and ruler. Use the same understanding of language for both, please.
3.) So you want no rulers UNLESS they are private property rulers. That is one big ole nasty contradiction. Send me a postcard when you get to that fantasy land.

Anarchy. It is what it is an no amount of thinking or reasoning is going to change that. Sorry, it just wasn't meant to be.

You called yourself that in so many words. Maybe you should be careful what you type?


Did you read the article I posted? Yes or no?

As for number 3, that is not a contradiction at all. Private property authority is rightful authority, that is what provides order in a society. When an anti-social individual attempts to exercise control over another's property, that causes disorder/chaos. You are dense.

[powerofreason]

I can't wait to read your response to the article I posted on Somalia. This should be good.

/popcorn

[newbitech]

There ya go.


I knew it wouldn't be long for the dreaded wall of text to strike. haha. you can't convince me to read that any more than I can convince you to read this

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/1430/dreamdictionaryfordummiue8.png

[powerofreason]

WHERES THE CHAOS BRO?
WHERES THE LACK OF RULES?
I CAN'T FIND THAT STUFF IN THE ARTICLE. WHY IS THAT?

And yes we all now how foreign governments have fucked up Somalia since then.

[powerofreason]

I knew it wouldn't be long for the dreaded wall of text to strike. haha. you can't convince me to read that any more than I can convince you to read this



Hah! He's in denial! He won't allow himself to read it!

[klamath]

deleted

[heavenlyboy34]

There isn't really a whole lot that needs to be understood about anarchy in this forum other than it is not a viable solution to our current situation. Now an argument can be made that anarchy is a viable outcome if we do not change course, but even if the anarchist did see their dreams of no government, no rules, no leaders, social chaos etc etc, come true it wouldn't last.

1.) yes chaotic, that is the definition. Sorry to be the bearer of the dictionary and accepted definitions. Its just a fact, deal with it.
2.) yes leaderless AND rulerless. You cannot on the one hand use one dictionary to give a definition of anarchy then on the other hand use a different dictionary to give the definition of leader and ruler. Use the same understanding of language for both, please.
3.) So you want no rulers UNLESS they are private property rulers. That is one big ole nasty contradiction. Send me a postcard when you get to that fantasy land.

Anarchy. It is what it is an no amount of thinking or reasoning is going to change that. Sorry, it just wasn't meant to be.

You called yourself that in so many words. Maybe you should be careful what you type?

Nice trolling http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gifhttp://farm1.static.flickr.com/21/25190372_263e6c4c4f.jpg?v=0 and sub-par reasoning there.

Yet another victim of government education tries and fails to discredit anarchism. Keep it coming, you amuse me. :D

[powerofreason]

There are multiple dictionary definitions for anarchy, anyways. Chaos is just one of them. Are you too stupid to realize that? I point out anarchy that does not match your pie in the sky definition. And all you can do is sputter on about the dictionary. Give me a break. Get lost fool.

[powerofreason]

Here it is again Newbitech. Avert your eyes so they aren't burned by the truth.


The Rule of Law without the State

Mises Daily 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

[heavenlyboy34]

Why can't you answer the questions. This is the number one thing standing in the way of Anarchy so it should be the first point you should be able hold an intelligent discussion about. Same answer,"read this book".

Is that any worse than telling congress to "read the constitution", though?

We've had plenty of intelligent conversation (with numerous sources cited), and it always gets dismissed. Why should I even bother if you aren't going to pay attention to what I say?

[newbitech]

Freedom with rules =/= freedom.

Freedom with rules is your poetic way of stating "you can be free until I decide the boot of government needs to be on your throat." What rationale do you have for using government force on ANYONE? When you can answer that, we may be able to discuss.


Freedom without rules is unsustainable.

Freedom with rules is sustainable.

none because I never rationalized this.

Does someone have a boot to your throat? No really? I don't think so. Have you ever had physical confrontation with a jackboot while defending what you believe are your natural rights? If you answer no, then I highly suggest you back off the use of force argument until you know what the hell it is you are talking about. If yes, then I suggest we compare notes on our actual life experience rather than debate a failed social construct.

[newbitech]

WHERES THE CHAOS BRO?
WHERES THE LACK OF RULES?
I CAN'T FIND THAT STUFF IN THE ARTICLE. WHY IS THAT?

And yes we all now how foreign governments have fucked up Somalia since then.


you are not seriously using Somalia as an example of what you want this country to be. If you are, then I am pretty sure I am wasting my time with you. Is this a fucking joke? Is my computer hacked? Is this some spoof Ron Paul forum?

Wow.

[newbitech]

Nice trolling http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gif and sub-par reasoning there.

Yet another victim of government education tries and fails to discredit anarchism. Keep it coming, you amuse me. :D

are you lost?

[Chieppa1]

So, are you going to answer the posted question about Somalia? If it is such an anarchy, why is it RULED by small leaders that force their rules on private citizens? So yea, there is no central government....just private citizens that used their resources and violence to control a group of people. How is that a good example?

P.S. didn't finish reading article yet. So give me 15 minutes before you call me a Statist.

[heavenlyboy34]

are you lost?

Nope. Are you?

[klamath]

deleted

[__27__]

Freedom without rules is unsustainable.

Freedom with rules is sustainable.

none because I never rationalized this.

Does someone have a boot to your throat? No really? I don't think so. Have you ever had physical confrontation with a jackboot while defending what you believe are your natural rights? If you answer no, then I highly suggest you back off the use of force argument until you know what the hell it is you are talking about. If yes, then I suggest we compare notes on our actual life experience rather than debate a failed social construct.

Who is enforcing the "rules" in your freedomland?

Ah yes, because the polite man in a suit with an IRS form telling me I will give him half of my years earnings or I will be sent to prison is not an initiation of force.

Who is enforcing the "rules in your freedomland?

[heavenlyboy34]

Freedom without rules is unsustainable.

Freedom with rules is sustainable.



Sounds like anarchy to me. Except "rules" in anarchy are not imposed arbitrarily by a central authority.

[pcosmar]

There Are No Illegal Aliens, or Murderers, Rapists, Thieves, Just Human Beings

There are Laws.
Laws are broken.

Get a clue.

[__27__]

There are Laws.
Laws are broken.

Get a clue.

Good call. So PATRIOT is law right? So it's therefore right for the government to spy on your personal communication without warrant, right?

Get a clue.

[newbitech]

Nope. Are you?

You must be lost if you think I am a troll.

I am pretty sure that I am in the right place, but the more of your anarchist buddies that come out of the woodwork, and the more people you can convince that we should go in the direction of Somalia, then yeah I will probably find my way to some other forum.

[powerofreason]

you are not seriously using Somalia as an example of what you want this country to be. If you are, then I am pretty sure I am wasting my time with you. Is this a fucking joke? Is my computer hacked? Is this some spoof Ron Paul forum?

Wow.

Lol you still won't read it. What are you afraid of? And I can't believe you keep saying that there are no rules in anarchy when there clearly are. You are obtuse man. Nothing can be shoved through your thick head. Why do you even participate on this forum? So you can spread your ignorance? Somalia is a great example of how anarchy can greatly improve a country's standard of living.

[newbitech]

Good call. So PATRIOT is law right? So it's therefore right for the government to spy on your personal communication without warrant, right?

Get a clue.

no you get a clue. The patriot act is unconstitutional and needs to be challenge in the supreme court. essh, supreme law of the land. its called the constitution and last I check the person this forum was made for, namely Ron Paul supports the constitution. is there a problem with that?

[powerofreason]

There are Laws.
Laws are broken.

Get a clue.

Legal positivism justifies the Holocaust.

Get a clue.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, you never will engage in this discusion. You cut and paste from your bibles. It is not citing sources it is plagarizing someone elses opinion.
Articulate your own answers. How would you like it if every time we had a discusion I would cut and paste a chapter out of the Comminist Manifesto.

You can't be serious. :eek: Constitutionalists simply quote from the Constitution all the time, as if that alone proves their point. It is no less valid for me to post literature elaborating the anarchist position. It saves me time and is more detailed than I have time to be. (I don't live on the puter like many here seem to)

Actually, I did engage in early debates. They became so circular and vacant of real facts (as opposed to false facts) about anarchism that I got bored.

If we were discussing Marx and I tried to make a claim about his manifesto or philosophy, it would be entirely appropriate for you to paste it.

[newbitech]

Lol you still won't read it. What are you afraid of? And I can't believe you keep saying that there are no rules in anarchy when there clearly are. You are obtuse man. Nothing can be shoved through your thick head. Why do you even participate on this forum? So you can spread your ignorance? Somalia is a great example of how anarchy can greatly improve a country's standard of living.

Is that what you are trying to do? Well good job because you forced me to read it by spamming this thread with it.

I scanned it. Look at the stats. What a joke, so anarchy can take us from an infant mortality rate of 1.4 out of 10 to 1.1 out of 10 lovely.

And in your ideal world I am dead in 10 years. Nice.

I participate because this forum is where all of the good information is. Of course you have to sift thru the anarchist bullshit to find it. Lately there has been more and more of the anarchist bullshit, so it makes it a little more difficult. I wish I could be ignorant of the people who post like fools, but unfortunately you won't allow that now will you.

Yeah somalia is such a great example, yet you'd never consider giving up your statist life style to move there now would you?

[__27__]

no you get a clue. The patriot act is unconstitutional and needs to be challenge in the supreme court. essh, supreme law of the land. its called the constitution and last I check the person this forum was made for, namely Ron Paul supports the constitution. is there a problem with that?

Yes, in that you don't understand for more than a millisecond of what you speak. Do you believe in principles? Or do you believe in a cult of personality around one man? Paul is a great man, but if you rely on him to define YOUR principles, one must question if you have any principles.

Tell me, what has the constitution done to protect your rights? The answer, quite simply, is not one damned thing. It's sat there like a piece of paper for hundreds of years, while your rights were eroded away. Your rights do not come from a piece of paper. If you believe they do, then you believe your rights can also be taken away by a piece of paper.

PATRIOT is every bit as much law today as "illegal" immigration. To cling to one and reject the other shows your own pathetic cognitive dissonance in the fallacy of legal positivism.

[__27__]

Is that what you are trying to do? Well good job because you forced me to read it by spamming this thread with it.

I scanned it. Look at the stats. What a joke, so anarchy can take us from an infant mortality rate of 1.4 out of 10 to 1.1 out of 10 lovely.

And in your ideal world I am dead in 10 years. Nice.

I participate because this forum is where all of the good information is. Of course you have to sift thru the anarchist bullshit to find it. Lately there has been more and more of the anarchist bullshit, so it makes it a little more difficult. I wish I could be ignorant of the people who post like fools, but unfortunately you won't allow that now will you.

Yeah somalia is such a great example, yet you'd never consider giving up your statist life style to move there now would you?

Anarchists are libertarians who stick to their principles. GOP-lites are statists who have a pet-like love for a few selected libertarian principles to be followed until they decide that they can be abandoned.

You either believe in the rights of the individual or you don't.

[familydog]

Interesting thoughts. The way I see it, is that if the State comes back somehow (foreign government intervention seems to be the one real possibility for that to happen) then we're back to square 1. The government will start off with a small amount of legitimacy and will have to slowly gain it. Thats why minarchist fears of a tyrannical government just springing up out of nowhere are unfounded. It would take a massive, overwhelming military presence to force widespread obedience to a fledgling government not seen as legitimate by the people.

So we have arrived at a central question to this debate. Are borders inevitable? They exist as a prerequisite for private property. It is only natural that they translate over to government "property" when a government exists. Borders are a natural extension of any property.

When we debate borders we are actually debating the relevence and existence of the state. The thread has obviously shifted to this. Logically, since I feel borders are inevitable I also feel government is as well.

[powerofreason]

Is that what you are trying to do? Well good job because you forced me to read it by spamming this thread with it.

I scanned it. Look at the stats. What a joke, so anarchy can take us from an infant mortality rate of 1.4 out of 10 to 1.1 out of 10 lovely.

And in your ideal world I am dead in 10 years. Nice.

I participate because this forum is where all of the good information is. Of course you have to sift thru the anarchist bullshit to find it. Lately there has been more and more of the anarchist bullshit, so it makes it a little more difficult. I wish I could be ignorant of the people who post like fools, but unfortunately you won't allow that now will you.

Yeah somalia is such a great example, yet you'd never consider giving up your statist life style to move there now would you?

Hah. Nice cherry picking of facts. Anarchy is not utopia. Never said that. Thats not the point I'm trying to make, thats the strawman you're attacking.

But its always better than having a state, thats the point. They IMPROVED under anarchy. We can too.

Durr. :rolleyes:

[klamath]

deleted

[newbitech]

Yes, in that you don't understand for more than a millisecond of what you speak. Do you believe in principles? Or do you believe in a cult of personality around one man? Paul is a great man, but if you rely on him to define YOUR principles, one must question if you have any principles.

Tell me, what has the constitution done to protect your rights? The answer, quite simply, is not one damned thing. It's sat there like a piece of paper for hundreds of years, while your rights were eroded away. Your rights do not come from a piece of paper. If you believe they do, then you believe your rights can also be taken away by a piece of paper.

PATRIOT is every bit as much law today as "illegal" immigration. To cling to one and reject the other shows your own pathetic cognitive dissonance in the fallacy of legal positivism.

4th amendment protects me from illegal search and seizure. It kept me out of jail last month. if the rest of what you said is based on some bullshit idea you have in your head about my life then I am pretty sure its meaningless tripe just like this question.

[newbitech]

Hah. Nice cherry picking of facts. Anarchy is not utopia. Never said that. Thats not the point I'm trying to make, thats the strawman you're attacking.

But its always better than having a state, thats the point. They IMPROVED under anarchy. We can too.

Durr. :rolleyes:

lol nice cherry picking? So its not enough I read the damn thing, I have to read it and only glean from it what you want me to glean from it.

Pfftt. this discussion is over. Anarchist, move to Somalia or stfu.

[powerofreason]

So we have arrived at a central question to this debate. Are borders inevitable? They exist as a prerequisite for private property. It is only natural that they translate over to government "property" when a government exists. Borders are a natural extension of any property.

When we debate borders we are actually debating the relevence and existence of the state. The thread has obviously shifted to this. Logically, since I feel borders are inevitable I also feel government is as well.

Government is inevitable? Well you're wrong there, because there have been successful anarchist societies in history. Government cannot rightfully own property, therefore there are no borders that ought to be respected. If I steal your house, do you have a responsibility to respect the border that I claim to be my own? No, of course not. Borders only apply to property that is rightfully owned. No other property is worthy of respecting.

[__27__]

lol nice cherry picking? So its not enough I read the damn thing, I have to read it and only glean from it what you want me to glean from it.

Pfftt. this discussion is over. Anarchist, move to Somalia or stfu.

lol, I have to use my own brain? But the government didn't tell me to.


Pfft. this discussion is over. Statist, move to North Korea or stfu.

[klamath]

deleted

[powerofreason]

Have you bother to look at how much money has been hijacked from private companies? Add a millions millions of stolen money to a country where the average wage is a few dollars a day and the standard of living is going to go up. But then once again this is not anarchy. I don't care if it is the counties capital leader or the local warlord that forces me to do something. Personally the outcome to me is the same. I lost my freedom!

Warlords are a problem because they rightly anticipated a new government would be formed by foreigners. They want to kill their competition so they can own the government and loot the people legally. If the US and UN butted out then warlords wouldn't have anything to fight for. They wouldn't be able to get people to fight for them. And anyways, I'll take a warlords 5-10% tax over 50% state/local/federal taxes any day. I'm not saying Somalia is a great place to live right now but it could have continued to improve at a phenomenal rate had US and UN not interfered.

[__27__]

4th amendment protects me from illegal search and seizure. It kept me out of jail last month. if the rest of what you said is based on some bullshit idea you have in your head about my life then I am pretty sure its meaningless tripe just like this question.

Really? What did 4th amendment look like? Did he personally handle your dispute, or did he just do things over the phone?

It's an awful good thing that piece of paper decided to give you a right to be secure in your possessions, right? Because I mean without it you really don't have that right.

[newbitech]

lol, I have to use my own brain? But the government didn't tell me to.


Pfft. this discussion is over. Statist, move to North Korea or stfu.

what the hell are you talking about? I used the stats in the article posted. There is no evidence that anarchy is the reason conditions are improving. But I will give the benefit of the doubt.

I am not the one posting articles claiming that North Korea's social structure is better than the United states. So no I think I will continue to live in the freest country in the world thanks.

Feel free to go live in N.K. and report back your findings.

[powerofreason]

So if you are bored discusing anarchy what is the point of even being on these forums? Is it only to make snide comments in every thread? Convincing people on your beliefs takes a little effort, man.
Sorry but you are addressing me, show me where I cut and pasted parts out of the constitution?

I think Somalia's success with anarchy provides a great recent example of how a country's standard of living can be massively improved simply by removing the government and letting the market take over. You don't think that highly civilized America couldn't do even better than Somalia?

[powerofreason]

LMAO you cherry picked 2 facts that were unimpressive. You are nothing but an idiotic statist troll Newbitech.

[powerofreason]

what the hell are you talking about? I used the stats in the article posted. There is no evidence that anarchy is the reason conditions are improving. But I will give the benefit of the doubt.

I am not the one posting articles claiming that North Korea's social structure is better than the United states. So no I think I will continue to live in the freest country in the world thanks.

Feel free to go live in N.K. and report back your findings.

No evidence? What the hell else happened that would cause the improvement? Weather patterns? :rolleyes:

And guess what? You were proved wrong that anarchy causes chaos and provides no rules. Just plain wrong. Period. End o' story.

[__27__]

what the hell are you talking about? I used the stats in the article posted. There is no evidence that anarchy is the reason conditions are improving. But I will give the benefit of the doubt.

I am not the one posting articles claiming that North Korea's social structure is better than the United states. So no I think I will continue to live in the freest country in the world thanks.

Feel free to go live in N.K. and report back your findings.

But North Korea has RULES man! Surely a society such as North Korea with such stringent rules will elicit a wonderful result, will it not? We were told government enforced rules were the essence of freedom, right?

The freest country in the world. :D

[newbitech]

Really? What did 4th amendment look like? Did he personally handle your dispute, or did he just do things over the phone?

It's an awful good thing that piece of paper decided to give you a right to be secure in your possessions, right? Because I mean without it you really don't have that right.

you are talking out of your ass. Why don't you ask about my experience instead of acting like you know what happened. Really, where were you 2 years ago? Is it your defense of anarchy that has drawn you to these forums? Cause I am pretty sure most of us here are to support Ron Paul and help him bring changes to the united states.

Its not the piece of paper that protected me. Its the law. Because that law is the supreme law, I was able to refer to that law in a legal proceeding. Know what, don't even bother to ask me what happened, cause I am sure you are planning on pushing anarchy regardless.

[klamath]

deleted

[familydog]

Government is inevitable? Well you're wrong there, because there have been successful anarchist societies in history. Government cannot rightfully own property, therefore there are no borders that ought to be respected. If I steal your house, do you have a responsibility to respect the border that I claim to be my own? No, of course not. Borders only apply to property that is rightfully owned. No other property is worthy of respecting.

There certainly are historical examples of successful anarchical societies. There are also historical examples of successful minarchical societies. At the same time, both have failed to stand the test of time. So in a sense, each of these societies were unsuccessful. If a society cannot defend itself (just as an individual), how successful can a society truely be?

The fact is that the vast majority of humans consider government to be neccessary for one reason or another. We are a tribal species. We value living in the collective more than living alone. The fact that you and I are having this conversation to begin with underscores this point. Governments are an natural (but unneccesary) extension of collectivism.

[powerofreason]

There certainly are historical examples of successful anarchical societies. There are also historical examples of successful minarchical societies. At the same time, both have failed to stand the test of time. So in a sense, each of these societies were unsuccessful. If a society cannot defend itself (just as an individual), how successful can a society truely be?

The fact is that the vast majority of humans consider government to be neccessary for one reason or another. We are a tribal species. We value living in the collective more than living alone. The fact that you and I are having this conversation to begin with underscores this point. Governments are an natural (but unneccesary) extension of collectivism.

Why they failed to stand the test of time is more important. Anarchical societies tend to fail because of foreign intervention. Minarchical societies fail without outside influence. Anarchical societies can last way longer than minarchical ones for this reason. Stop trying to justify evil. Fight it, don't give in to it.

[heavenlyboy34]

You must be lost if you think I am a troll.

I am pretty sure that I am in the right place, but the more of your anarchist buddies that come out of the woodwork, and the more people you can convince that we should go in the direction of Somalia, then yeah I will probably find my way to some other forum.

Ahh...resorting to fallacious reasoning again, I see. You say "the direction of Somalia" as if to imply that anarchists favor "third world-ization". :rolleyes: On the surface, it bolsters your argument, but it misses the facts of the argument entirely. You again fail to distinguish "country" from "government". This is why you must read the articles and books about anarchism. We cannot discuss this properly if you don't understand it (and you clearly don't).

The kind of anarchy I speak of is merely removing the thugs (who use the cover of "government") who have a monopoly on violence in favor of natural order and truly free (unregulated) markets.

Of course I'm not lost. I call you a troll because you behave like one. As the old saying goes, "if it walks, talks, and acts like a troll, it's probably a troll".

[__27__]

you are talking out of your ass. Why don't you ask about my experience instead of acting like you know what happened. Really, where were you 2 years ago? Is it your defense of anarchy that has drawn you to these forums? Cause I am pretty sure most of us here are to support Ron Paul and help him bring changes to the united states.

Its not the piece of paper that protected me. Its the law. Because that law is the supreme law, I was able to refer to that law in a legal proceeding. Know, don't even bother to ask me what happened, cause I am sure you are planning on pushing anarchy regardless.

So without that paper, and that law given to you by a central government, you have no right to be secure in your possessions? For Gods sake THINK man.

The government, the constitution, Tommy Jefferson, Ron Paul, NONE Of these things or people GIVE you your rights. Your rights are NATURAL. Governments only function is to REDUCE rights, not to expand them. If you TRULY believe that you only have your rights because of a piece of paper, then your rights can be removed by removing or re-writing that piece of paper, or by simply ignoring it as has been done for the hundreds of years since it was written.

If the mere existence of the document guaranteed you your rights, then WHY ARE YOU FIGHTING NOW? Why are you telling me that you are going to "help Ron Paul bring changes to the united states"? If it is in the constitution already, why do you need to "bring changes" at all?

The power to give is the power to take. NO ONE grants you your rights. They belong to YOU and YOU ALONE. If you want to hand your rights over to a government, go right ahead, but kindly leave the rest of us out.

[paulitics]

Government is inevitable? Well you're wrong there, because there have been successful anarchist societies in history. Government cannot rightfully own property, therefore there are no borders that ought to be respected. If I steal your house, do you have a responsibility to respect the border that I claim to be my own? No, of course not. Borders only apply to property that is rightfully owned. No other property is worthy of respecting.

Name them. The succesful anarchist societies. No semantic games this time. This time you can't come back with examples of local feudalism, caste sytems, and slavery and tell me it is anarchy.

Also, it would prove your point better if you name examples where large heterogenous populations coexisted peacefully without government. Nomatic tribes, families, or explorers with unexplored lands or resources don't count since there is no defined society yet.

[klamath]

deleted

[Chieppa1]

So anarchy in society fails or failed because of "foreign intervention"? Ok, so anarchy failed because human beings came in and instituted some type of government.

So in conclusion, anarchy would never succeed because throughout history, the society finds some type of structure.

And yea, paying 5-10% tax to a warlord is still NOT freedom. So the Somalia example fails. They are not free. The Haves control the Have-nots.

[powerofreason]

So anarchy in society fails or failed because of "foreign intervention"? Ok, so anarchy failed because human beings came in and instituted some type of government.

So in conclusion, anarchy would never succeed because throughout history, the society finds some type of structure.

And yea, paying 5-10% tax to a warlord is still NOT freedom. So the Somalia example fails. They are not free. The Haves control the Have-nots.

Warlords are not everywhere. And the ones that are there are only do to foreign intervention. Are you seeking perfection? Because you're not gonna find it. Anarchy is the best possible situation, no matter how bad you may perceive it to be,

[newbitech]

So without that paper, and that law given to you by a central government, you have no right to be secure in your possessions? For Gods sake THINK man.

The government, the constitution, Tommy Jefferson, Ron Paul, NONE Of these things or people GIVE you your rights. Your rights are NATURAL. Governments only function is to REDUCE rights, not to expand them. If you TRULY believe that you only have your rights because of a piece of paper, then your rights can be removed by removing or re-writing that piece of paper, or by simply ignoring it as has been done for the hundreds of years since it was written.

If the mere existence of the document guaranteed you your rights, then WHY ARE YOU FIGHTING NOW? Why are you telling me that you are going to "help Ron Paul bring changes to the united states"? If it is in the constitution already, why do you need to "bring changes" at all?

The power to give is the power to take. NO ONE grants you your rights. They belong to YOU and YOU ALONE. If you want to hand your rights over to a government, go right ahead, but kindly leave the rest of us out.

why don't you do some research as to who I am and get back with me. There are over 2000 posts I have made over the last 2 years or so, in just this forum. Go read over it and then I might take you seriously when you pass judgment on my life.

[powerofreason]

How many ships have been hijacked in that period? A lot of money has gone into the country through ransom payments.

Thats only because private companies are not allowed to patrol the sea. Governments have a monopoly over that.

[RideTheDirt]

I live in Southern California. "illegal" immigration is not the problem. The problem is the dumb bastards who give away tax money to them. I know plenty of illegals who are very hard workers. If the government didn't give away free cash then it we would see a lot of southbound traffic, trucks filled, headed back to Mexico.( After riots, protests etc.)

[powerofreason]

why don't you do some research as to who I am and get back with me. There are over 2000 posts I have made over the last 2 years or so, in just this forum. Go read over it and then I might take you seriously when you pass judgment on my life.

You might be the least intelligent person I've ever encountered over the internet. You're so reluctant to let go of your bad ideas its ridiculous.

[Chieppa1]

Warlords are not everywhere. And the ones that are there are only do to foreign intervention. Are you seeking perfection? Because you're not gonna find it. Anarchy is the best possible situation, no matter how bad you may perceive it to be,

Perfection? No. A society that can function and LAST? Yes.

And explain your point about the creation of the warlords.

[Chieppa1]

You might be the least intelligent person I've ever encountered over the internet. You're so reluctant to let go of your bad ideas its ridiculous.

In your opinion they are bad. This whole post is you trying to change someone else's mind. Hey, its like "foreign intervention".

[powerofreason]

Name them. The succesful anarchist societies. No semantic games this time. This time you can't come back with examples of local feudalism, caste sytems, and slavery and tell me it is anarchy.

Also, it would prove your point better if you name examples where large heterogenous populations coexisted peacefully without government. Nomatic tribes, families, or explorers with unexplored lands or resources don't count since there is no defined society yet.

Iceland circa 1000: private law system lasted 300 years, longer than it took the US to fall to out and out tyranny.

Medieval Ireland: Advanced stateless society. Lasted for many years before being taken over by the English through sheer military might.

"Wild" West: Nearly anarcho-capitalist society. Private law and arbitration used frequently. Lower per capita crime rate than the east coast.

Pennsylvania Anarchist experiment: Successful until government forced itself on the people.

Anarchy after the Revolutionary War: Took several years for some places to be taken over by governments.

Government is evil.

For those that say government will always exist no matter what, well, so will murder.

Do you endorse that too? Or can you see the reason in fighting to prevent murder, although it may happen anyways?

[powerofreason]

In your opinion they are bad. This whole post is you trying to change someone else's mind. Hey, its like "foreign intervention".

Whats your point? Anarchy > Government.

Are you challenging that or not?

[powerofreason]

Perfection? No. A society that can function and LAST? Yes.

And explain your point about the creation of the warlords.

Wtf lasted about the American Republic? The best hope for minarchy was the American Republic. Well guess what? It failed. So much about America sucks nowadays thanks to the government. The barbarians in year 1000 Iceland kept it together longer than minarchy lasted. So much for that retarded theory. :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

lol nice cherry picking? So its not enough I read the damn thing, I have to read it and only glean from it what you want me to glean from it.

Pfftt. this discussion is over. Anarchist, move to Somalia or stfu.

Constitutionalist, move to a country where the Constitution is respected or STFU. (turnabout is fair play ;))

[heavenlyboy34]

Wtf lasted about the American Republic? The best hope for minarchy was the American Republic. Well guess what? It failed. So much about America sucks nowadays thanks to the government. The barbarians in year 1000 Iceland kept it together longer than minarchy lasted. So much for that retarded theory. :rolleyes:

Well said. :cool:

[powerofreason]

Ok, warlords come about so that they can seize control of the government when it springs up. They want to kill any potential competition. The warlord and his supporters want to have sole control over the government so they can loot the people legally. Together with their US and UN friends their wildest dreams can come true.

[powerofreason]

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It

Mises Daily 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.

What do you think Chieppa?

[nayjevin]

The wiser a person gets, the less government that person finds legitimate.

[Chieppa1]

Whats your point? Anarchy > Government.

Are you challenging that or not?

I'm just pointing out how forceful you are with your stance. You respect the individual. But have no problem spending 50% of your day belittling others. How about instead of trying to FORCE freedom (:confused:) on people, you go get your backpack and tent...and go live totally free from government?(I've done it, its sweet, you should go enjoy it for a bit instead of just talking about it.

[Chieppa1]

What do you think Chieppa?

I think if you want to personal live free from laws go do it. Its an individual choice. You can't collectively create a society of zero laws. You have to start with free individuals, then groups can from.

So stop sitting on the computer and talking about it and just go live it.

[dannno]

I'm just pointing out how forceful you are with your stance. You respect the individual. But have no problem spending 50% of your day belittling others. How about instead of trying to FORCE freedom (:confused:) on people, you go get your backpack and tent...and go live totally free from government?(I've done it, its sweet, you should go enjoy it for a bit instead of just talking about it.

I find the argument that people are trying to "force freedom" on others as completely illogical.

Think about what it means to "force" somebody else to be free. The only "force" involved is removing "force", which is the part that I find illogical.

[powerofreason]

I'm just pointing out how forceful you are with your stance. You respect the individual. But have no problem spending 50% of your day belittling others. How about instead of trying to FORCE freedom (:confused:) on people, you go get your backpack and tent...and go live totally free from government?(I've done it, its sweet, you should go enjoy it for a bit instead of just talking about it.

I only get annoyed after people purposely decide to be obtuse. I never am rude to a person who is genuinely interested in my ideas. Some people are a lost cause. When I recognize that, I don't really care if they feel respected or not.

[powerofreason]

I think if you want to personal live free from laws go do it. Its an individual choice. You can't collectively create a society of zero laws. You have to start with free individuals, then groups can from.

So stop sitting on the computer and talking about it and just go live it.

Thats what the free state project is all about. I'm signed up for it.

[powerofreason]

I think if you want to personal live free from laws go do it. Its an individual choice. You can't collectively create a society of zero laws. You have to start with free individuals, then groups can from.

So stop sitting on the computer and talking about it and just go live it.

Really? thats your only comment on the article I posted for you? :rolleyes:

[powerofreason]

I haven't exhausted all the statists have I? I'm on a roll today. I feel like Neo in the Matrix fighting off all the Mr. Smiths' in that epic fight scene.

Okay maybe thats a little over dramatic :p

[Chieppa1]

Really? thats your only comment on the article I posted for you? :rolleyes:

No i read the article. And my response was for you to just stop trying to force this idea of people and go live it. Let them figure it out on their own.

And you answered it. Free State Project. I'm also signed up. If you want to educate people, why not just paste the website and end it. Instead of trying to be "a champion for freedom" and just coming off as really stuck up.

[familydog]

Why they failed to stand the test of time is more important. Anarchical societies tend to fail because of foreign intervention. Minarchical societies fail without outside influence. Anarchical societies can last way longer than minarchical ones for this reason. Stop trying to justify evil. Fight it, don't give in to it.

Please consider reading my posts more carefully. I have not justified the existence of the state. At every opportunity I have deemed the state unneccesary and irrational.

Do anarchical states fail because of foreign intervention? A wonderful book entitled The Myth of National Defense (http://www.amazon.com/Myth-National-Defense-Hans-Hermann-Hoppe/dp/0945466374/ref=reg_hu-wl_item-added) argues that the free market can do a better job in defending a society than a state can. Is this true? If so, why has anarchy (possessing a free market) failed at long-term sustainability if foriegn intervention is the main threat?

Is Somalia a prime example of a sustainable anarchy? It may be too early to tell. What advantages does a state have in invading Somalia and establishing a government? The country has little natural resources of value and the people themselves are poor and produce little. Which historical examples of anarchical societies were not "archaic" societies like Somalia?

The threat to an anarchical society comes from within the society. Murray Rothbard lauds early Pennsylvania (http://mises.org/story/1865) as a prime example of a succesful anarchy. However, upon reading further one discovers that William Penn eventually regained control over his colony. No outside interference was responsible for the collapse of that anarchy.

Ironically, Rothbard is responsible for my belief in the inevitability of the state. He reasons in Ethics of Liberty that human nature renders minarchy impossible. At the same time, he argues in For a New Liberty for a free market solution to police protection. His assumption on human nature tells us that leaders of a minarchical society will do what is neccessary to gain more power and eliminate more liberty. What is stopping this same human nature assumption from being applied to his private protection firm argument? I see no reason why it can't.

[powerofreason]

No i read the article. And my response was for you to just stop trying to force this idea of people and go live it. Let them figure it out on their own.

And you answered it. Free State Project. I'm also signed up. If you want to educate people, why not just paste the website and end it. Instead of trying to be "a champion for freedom" and just coming off as really stuck up.

Screw you. I'll do what I want. This is entertaining for me. I can hone my debate skills here and find out what the most common arguments against my position are. If you don't like how I post go take a hike cuz I don't care. Lol @ the idea of "forcing freedom" on people. Freedom is the absence of coercive force. Thats like an oxymoron. Go live in the woods again so you can pretend like you're free for a bit. Sounds like a Barney episode :rolleyes:

[powerofreason]

Please consider reading my posts more carefully. I have not justified the existence of the state. At every opportunity I have deemed the state unneccesary and irrational.

Do anarchical states fail because of foreign intervention? A wonderful book entitled The Myth of National Defense (http://www.amazon.com/Myth-National-Defense-Hans-Hermann-Hoppe/dp/0945466374/ref=reg_hu-wl_item-added) argues that the free market can do a better job in defending a society than a state can. Is this true? If so, why has anarchy (possessing a free market) failed at long-term sustainability if foriegn intervention is the main threat?

Is Somalia a prime example of a sustainable anarchy? It may be too early to tell. What advantages does a state have in invading Somalia and establishing a government? The country has little natural resources of value and the people themselves are poor and produce little. Which historical examples of anarchical societies were not "archaic" societies like Somalia?

The threat to an anarchical society comes from within the society. Murray Rothbard lauds early Pennsylvania (http://mises.org/story/1865) as a prime example of a succesful anarchy. However, upon reading further one discovers that William Penn eventually regained control over his colony. No outside interference was responsible for the collapse of that anarchy.

Ironically, Rothbard is responsible for my belief in the inevitability of the state. He reasons in Ethics of Liberty that human nature renders minarchy impossible. At the same time, he argues in For a New Liberty for a free market solution to police protection. His assumption on human nature tells us that leaders of a minarchical society will do what is neccessary to gain more power and eliminate more liberty. What is stopping this same human nature assumption from being applied to his private protection firm argument? I see no reason why it can't.

Overwhelming foreign force cannot be defended from by any system. Thats why. I'm not interested in arguing with anarchists in this thread so shoo. The State is not inevitable. A day will come, perhaps far into the future, where the stateless society is the norm. This movement will grow and grow and grow. One day, it will be mainstream. Not in my lifetime. But some day.

[paulitics]

Warlords are not everywhere. And the ones that are there are only do to foreign intervention. Are you seeking perfection? Because you're not gonna find it. Anarchy is the best possible situation, no matter how bad you may perceive it to be,

What evidence do you have of that?
Well, let's just assume you are right, and power structures never occur on its own without foreign intervention.
You are telling me that foreign invention caused warlords, etc. This underscores one of my points. And that is, you can't keep corruption outside this little vaccum.

It will creep in eventually, and the power hungry will not play by the rules, and will become traitors to their own people. The meek will not stand up, and the collectivists will either become opportunists (mercs, spys, politicians) or beg for protection. Without the rule of law, it is no contest for the good people who just want to be left alone. A power structure will inevitably take hold.

You don't understand the philosophy of the founding father's do you? This is the cynical, realistic approach they took, and things are always uglier than you expect. They predicted a republic would fall apart as soon as the citizenry became apathetic. There is nothing occuring now, that they did not predict.


Finally, what makes you think warlords are not prevelant? What proof do you have of this? And why are you assuming that everyone who are not anarchists worship the state?

The limited government folks understand that you can't eliminate government, so it is best to neuter the power structure as much as possible with a system of checks and balances and laws that limit what they can do. Without the Bill of rights, and constitution the power structure will take it as far as possible without fear of repercussion. Fear is the mother of morality. Sorry, but it is true.

[powerofreason]

What evidence do you have of that?
Well, let's just assume you are right, and power structures never occur on its own without foreign intervention.
You are telling me that foreign invention caused warlords, etc. This underscores one of my points. And that is, you can't keep corruption outside this little vaccum.

It will creep in eventually, and the power hungry will not play by the rules, and will become traitors to their own people. The meek will not stand up, and the collectivists will either become opportunists (mercs, spys, politicians) or beg for protection. Without the rule of law, it is no contest for the good people who just want to be left alone. A power structure will inevitably take hold.

You don't understand the philosophy of the founding father's do you? This is the cynical, realistic approach they took, and things are always uglier than you expect. They predicted a republic would fall apart as soon as the citizenry became apathetic. There is nothing occuring now, that they did not predict.


Finally, what makes you think warlords are not prevelant? What proof do you have of this? And why are you assuming that everyone who are not anarchists worship the state?

The limited government folks understand that you can't eliminate government, so it is best to neuter the power structure as much as possible with a system of checks and balances and laws that limit what they can do. Without the Bill of rights, and constitution the power structure will take it as far as possible without fear of repercussion. Fear is the mother of morality. Sorry, but it is true.

I can't believe you just said the founding fathers took a realistic approach. What a hoot! Their approach was utopian and it failed. Get over it. Read this if you want to learn more about Somalia.


Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It

Mises Daily 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.

[Chieppa1]

Screw you. I'll do what I want. This is entertaining for me. I can hone my debate skills here and find out what the most common arguments against my position are. If you don't like how I post go take a hike cuz I don't care. Lol @ the idea of "forcing freedom" on people. Freedom is the absence of coercive force. Thats like an oxymoron. Go live in the woods again so you can pretend like you're free for a bit. Sounds like a Barney episode :rolleyes:

So because I've actually lived free from rules, that makes me an idiot? :rolleyes:

Your just a backseat driver. All talk, no action. Its pretty pathetic how great you think you are.

And yes, sitting in a internet forum insulting people until they see things your way (total free society) is in conflict with respect of the individual.

People respect action, not words. But you "hone your debate skills" maybe you can destroy tyranny with them.

[powerofreason]

So because I've actually lived free from rules, that makes me an idiot? :rolleyes:

Your just a backseat driver. All talk, no action. Its pretty pathetic how great you think you are.

And yes, sitting in a internet forum insulting people until they see things your way (total free society) is in conflict with respect of the individual.

People respect action, not words. But you "hone your debate skills" maybe you can destroy tyranny with them.

I wouldn't describe myself as "great."

I don't think you're an idiot. Just don't tell me what to do.

My goal is not to destroy tyranny with this thread.

I'm not all talk and no action.

And you're not free of rules because the government can find you and kidnap you and execute you in secret for any reason or no reason at all. Or do pretty much any damn thing they please with your property and your life, if they want to.

Nice strawmen and assorted falsehoods.

[Chieppa1]

And you're not free of rules because the government can find you and kidnap you and execute you in secret for any reason or no reason at all. Or do pretty much any damn thing they please with your property and your life, if they want to.

If I let them. And if I end up dead defending myself, then I died free. The government can't do anything to you unless you let them.

Now, if more people actually LIVED that way, instead of just talking about it, then government power weakens.

[familydog]

Overwhelming foreign force cannot be defended from by any system. Thats why. I'm not interested in arguing with anarchists in this thread so shoo. The State is not inevitable. A day will come, perhaps far into the future, where the stateless society is the norm. This movement will grow and grow and grow. One day, it will be mainstream. Not in my lifetime. But some day.

I am quite surprised that you are demanding I leave the discussion. I guess we all have a little tyrannical streak in us.

Your argument of why the state is not inevitable is unconvincing. In this very quote you conradict your previous post about foriegn intervention.

I am simply making an assumption on human behavior. Of course anarchy could be mainstream one day, but again based on human behavior I see no evidence to support that.

[powerofreason]

If I let them. And if I end up dead defending myself, then I died free. The government can't do anything to you unless you let them.

Now, if more people actually LIVED that way, instead of just talking about it, then government power weakens.

Great attitude. I admire your courage, and I'm not being sarcastic.

[powerofreason]

I am quite surprised that you are demanding I leave the discussion. I guess we all have a little tyrannical streak in us.

Your argument of why the state is not inevitable is unconvincing. In this very quote you conradict your previous post about foriegn intervention.

I am simply making an assumption on human behavior. Of course anarchy could be mainstream one day, but again based on human behavior I see no evidence to support that.

Well I'm not demanding you leave, but you are being pretty annoying at this point. This is my thread, after all.

And thats fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not going to try and change your mind. If you're an anarchist then you don't have any desire to force your viewpoint on anyone so its all good.

[heavenlyboy34]

If I let them. And if I end up dead defending myself, then I died free. The government can't do anything to you unless you let them.

Now, if more people actually LIVED that way, instead of just talking about it, then government power weakens.

Ah, but if you have to die defending yourself from the government, you would've been better off not having the government in the first place. ;):) You're right that some action is necessary for Stateless society to succeed, though. :cool:

[angelatc]

They would of course have to buy or rent their property. If there isn't enough property they're out of luck. No one disputes that.

So they drive down wages while driving property values up. Brilliant plan.

[TortoiseDream]

New question: what would you do if some random person came, uninvited, into your house without you noticing, without having rung the bell, and sat down on your couch and turned on the TV?

Hmm?

[moostraks]

And you're not free of rules because the government can find you and kidnap you and execute you in secret for any reason or no reason at all. Or do pretty much any damn thing they please with your property and your life, if they want to.



Anarchist finds utopia in his free society where no one encroaches or poses a threat?

So how did it come that the more people developed intellect the more they saw fit to specialize?

[paulitics]

I can't believe you just said the founding fathers took a realistic approach. What a hoot! Their approach was utopian and it failed. Get over it. Read this if you want to learn more about Somalia.

I know you hate the founding father's and constitutional government, but to call it utopian is absurd. They based it on the flaws of human nature, not some idealistic fantasy that people will play nice like anrachy or communism.




Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It

Mises Daily 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


This describes a tribal society, (which I have always said that anarchy can exist in a family unit due to the trust factor and homogenous nature). It still sucks, and is not the anarchy you preach about. This is local socialism, or communism (anarcho-communism?) where the wealtheir clan members must share or give their property to the poorer clansmen or suffer repercussions, which probably isn't pretty. One does not own anything.

I can't believe you just showed me an example of tribal socialism. And they still are not without laws and courts, although still a little barbaric in their customs. The covering of people in ants to settle a dispute, seems a little stone age.

By the way, I don't think you would live very long there as an outsider, they would probably consider you an illegal alien and I don't think you will get free health care, but you are more than welcome to try this utopian experiment if you like. Sometimes, people have to learn the hard way.

[powerofreason]

So they drive down wages while driving property values up. Brilliant plan.

As is their right. They're not initiating aggression against anyone. Thats what YOU propose. Employers can hire whoever they want. Sellers can sell to whoever they want. Renters can rent to whoever they want. Thats called....



Freedom

[moostraks]

As is their right. They're not initiating aggression against anyone. Thats what YOU propose. Employers can hire whoever they want. Sellers can sell to whoever they want. Renters can rent to whoever they want. Thats called....



Freedom

Currently what you have in the US is called gaming the system or leeching...Take your pick.