"If you want Libertarian ________, go to Somalia!"

[Brian Defferding]

...Is so utterly ignorant it almost makes me lose my mind. This retarded soundbyte has been getting more usage as of late.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/10/844634/-Markos-to-Rush:-Want-libertarian-health-care-Try-Somalia.

A word to the wise - learn about Somalia first before you open your mouth about it. Dumbass.


/rant

[Fozz]

I take that Somalia video as a joke.

The real ignorance is in thinking that Rush Limbaugh is libertarian.

[torchbearer]

anarchist claim somalia as an example of governmentless utopia, not libertarians.
one of the opposition clans got pwned big time in the capital.
the african union had armor guarding the current ruling gang of the capital.
not sure why they'd get involved in the non-ending civil war.

[mediahasyou]

Somalia is an example of Governments Gone Wild.

This idea is ridiculous: "Somalia is stateless because the UN does not recognize the current governments of Somalia."

[jmdrake]

The sad fact is that Somalia had almost become stable before the U.S. decided to bribe the Ethiopians to invade. :mad:

[torchbearer]

Somalia is an example of Governments Gone Wild.

Somalia is not stateless because the UN does not recognize the current governments of Somalia.

that is the point, without a strong central government, every jerk off who has enough friends with guns becomes his own government and they all go to war against each other. welcome to the results of anarchy.
you can't force people not to form these malicious government unless you have one that is more powerful than theirs.
Maybe if you just went and talked to them about the goodness of non-violence, then they'd just stop.

[johngr]

that is the point, without a strong central government, every jerk off who has enough friends with guns becomes his own government and they all go to war against each other. welcome to the results of anarchy.
you can't force people not to form these malicious government unless you have one that is more powerful than theirs.
Maybe if you just went and talked to them about the goodness of non-violence, then they'd just stop.

I'm not quite clear on what difference you think it makes if the "jerk off's" friends wear tin badges or not.

I'd think it would be much easier to develop creative strategies, individually and collectively to defend oneself against unorganized, amateur jerk-offs with zero perceived legimitacy than organized, professional, "legimate" ones. And I doubt the former would care if my cigarette pack had a 1 by 4 inch label waring me that if I smoke, my nuts will fall off (as just one small example of a legion of examples).

[gls]

that is the point, without a strong central government, every jerk off who has enough friends with guns becomes his own government and they all go to war against each other. welcome to the results of anarchy.
you can't force people not to form these malicious government unless you have one that is more powerful than theirs.
Maybe if you just went and talked to them about the goodness of non-violence, then they'd just stop.

LOL you sound like Mike Huckabee. It is probably a good thing you never ran for office.

[mediahasyou]

that is the point, without a strong central government, every jerk off who has enough friends with guns becomes his own government and they all go to war against each other. welcome to the results of anarchy.
you can't force people not to form these malicious government unless you have one that is more powerful than theirs.
Maybe if you just went and talked to them about the goodness of non-violence, then they'd just stop.

Exactly, that is why if private agencies became more powerful than governments, anarchy would work.

[newbitech]

but according to one prominent anarchist, the united states government is a perfect example of how anarchy could work.

Go figure.

[Brian Defferding]

Somalia is missing many critical property rights protections, a police force to enforce those protections, and a proper standing army for national defense to every be considered "libertarian."

[torchbearer]

Exactly, that is why if private agencies became more powerful than governments, anarchy would work.

what if we gave them tin badges?
seems like i hit the nail on the head for some anarchist here. :D
Its that whole humanity thing that gets in the way of a perfect utopia.
If you can't deal with the fact that evil men will always gain power, your system isn't viable.
For instance, those private companies you harp about- what is your plan to keep in check tyrants who gain control over those companies?
not pay your dues? well, they don't need you to do that voluntarily when they can take it by force.

Somalia is a good example of what we don't want.

[torchbearer]

LOL you sound like Mike Huckabee. It is probably a good thing you never ran for office.

really? i'd like to see the quote of hucks that talks about the results of a society in chaos.

[torchbearer]

I'm not quite clear on what difference you think it makes if the "jerk off's" friends wear tin badges or not.

I'd think it would be much easier to develop creative strategies, individually and collectively to defend oneself against unorganized, amateur jerk-offs with zero perceived legimitacy than organized, professional, "legimate" ones. And I doubt the former would care if my cigarette pack had a 1 by 4 inch label waring me that if I smoke, my nuts will fall off (as just one small example of a legion of examples).

for some reason, we don't have the same problem here as they do in somalia, maybe the tin badges work. let's ship some to africa.

[mediahasyou]

For instance, those private companies you harp about- what is your plan to keep in check tyrants who gain control over those companies?

Competition.

People will simply go to another company if one becomes tyrannical.

[torchbearer]

Competition.

People will simply go to another company if one becomes tyrannical.

then why wouldn't competition in government work?
don't like the city of alexandria's government/protection agency, then move to shreveport and so on.

[mediahasyou]

then why wouldn't competition in government work?
don't like the city of alexandria's government/protection agency, then move to shreveport and so on.

the individual has more freedom if he does not have to move to choose a protection agency.

[torchbearer]

the individual has more freedom if he does not have to move to choose a protection agency.

well, there are many "protection agencies" at work in the same area in somalia.
that seems to be the problem.

[newbitech]

the individual has more freedom if he does not have to move to choose a protection agency.

How does the individual get to decide what "protection" agency to choose if the protection agency is controlled by one dominant group?

People move all the time to find a better life for themselves for various reasons, a common reason is the safety of the neighborhood in which to raise their children.

I could understand that someone might not have the means to move, I also can accept that it is immoral to force this type of entrapment on people.

So what is the solution? You cannot just snap your finger and have more competition served up to you locally. There needs to be a challenge to the status quo. This is what politics is about. Offering alternatives. Offering competition.

You are either going to get a situation where violence between non government forces and government forces erupt to force competition, or you are going to get a situation where you'll participate in the politics of the town.

I don't see any other way. "The state" is not just going to go away because people want it to go away.

[tremendoustie]

Somalia is an example of Governments Gone Wild.

This idea is ridiculous: "Somalia is stateless because the UN does not recognize the current governments of Somalia."

Exactly right. There are lots of men trying to rule over each other with guns in Somalia. That's the definition of government.

Situations like Somalia are to be expected when central governments collapse not because of principled opposition, but because of unrest or bankruptcy. To have a peaceful society, the people must stand against aggressive violence.

[mediahasyou]

well, there are many "protection agencies" at work in the same area in somalia.
that seems to be the problem.

I disagree, there are many governments at work. Governments initiate violence, private agencies do not. If the agency is ran correctly, a private agency based on NAP may flourish in Somalia.

However, as a human I shouldn't have to move across the globe because governments in America throw people in cages after not paying tribute.

[tremendoustie]

How does the individual get to decide what "protection" agency to choose if the protection agency is controlled by one dominant group?

People move all the time to find a better life for themselves for various reasons, a common reason is the safety of the neighborhood in which to raise their children.

I could understand that someone might not have the means to move, I also can accept that it is immoral to force this type of entrapment on people.

So what is the solution? You cannot just snap your finger and have more competition served up to you locally. There needs to be a challenge to the status quo. This is what politics is about. Offering alternatives. Offering competition.

You are either going to get a situation where violence between non government forces and government forces erupt to force competition, or you are going to get a situation where you'll participate in the politics of the town.

I don't see any other way. "The state" is not just going to go away because people want it to go away.

I think there are a number of peaceful ways it could go away.

1. Mass civil disobedience, leading them to give up on enforcement in certain areas. (See Gandhi).

2. Jury nullification, in which people refuse to enforce tax law.

3. People who support the NAP are voted into office, and transform the government into a non aggressive organization.

4. Civil disobedience by Law enforcement and military personnel, so that the politicians are unable to enforce immoral diktats.

5. States or regions declare independence.

etc.

Getting involved in politics is good, but the goal should be to change laws so that competition is allowed, and reduce and eliminate the aggressive violence of the state.

[mediahasyou]

Maybe if you just went and talked to them about the goodness of non-violence, then they'd just stop.


I don't see any other way. "The state" is not just going to go away because people want it to go away.

Hopefully that happens so society can evolve. Dissenters told the people that society could exist without feudalism, then society stopped having fixed positions for people in society. It has worked in the past.

YouTube - Ideas Change the World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RTHWrHovXU)

YouTube - A New Perspective (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs9GUUeskhM)

[tremendoustie]

then why wouldn't competition in government work?
don't like the city of alexandria's government/protection agency, then move to shreveport and so on.

It does work to an extent -- certainly it works better than one central government. If we have independent state governments, or better yet, independent local governments, people would have a lot of choice, and there would be a great deal of competition, just as you recognize. Also, local governments are generally more responsive than national ones.

Ultimately, however, a person has a right to live on their own land and keep the fruit of their labor. The majority in a town, just as in a nation, do not have a right to use aggressive violence on the minority, to extract money from them, or to enforce rules against victimless behavior.

If I had the option of moving power to municipalities and eliminating power from national and state governments, though, I'd absolutely do it.

[newbitech]

I think there are a number of peaceful ways it could go away.

1. Mass civil disobedience, leading them to give up on enforcement in certain areas. (See Gandhi).

2. Jury nullification, in which people refuse to enforce tax law.

3. People who support the NAP are voted into office, and transform the government into a non aggressive organization.

4. Civil disobedience by Law enforcement and military personnel, so that the politicians are unable to enforce immoral diktats.

5. States or regions declare independence.

etc.

Getting involved in politics is good, but the goal should be to change laws so that competition is allowed, and reduce and eliminate the aggressive violence of the state.

Yeah, I mean that is kind of my point. You either get involved or subject yourself to increasing physical violence. Sure philosophically what is occurring is violence in that people are forced to do things out of fear of actual violence. The people who disobey are physically forced to comply in the sense of being jailed. Jury Nullification sounds great, but it is the same physical threat that a judge can sequester a jury and lie to them about the process. And if a juror breaks sequester or if anyone tampers with jurors the threat for force and jail is there. All of these massive efforts require political activism. Gandhi faced violence, MLK faced violence.


On April 6, 1930, after having marched 241 miles on foot from his village to the sea, Mohandas K. Gandhi arrived at the coastal village of Dandi, India, and gathered salt. It was a simple act, but one which was illegal under British colonial rule of India. Gandhi was openly defying the British Salt Law. Within a month, people all over India were making salt illegally, and more than 100,000 were sent to jail; many fell victim to police violence, but none retaliated or even defended themselves (Herman 99-101).Are you ready to go to jail for "making salt"? Is anyone?

Are you ready to be killed for advocating not paying taxes?

So yeah, not defending yourself and enduring physical violence OR political activism. These are the "moral" choices. In my mind, I don't even think most people are ready to deal with the moral choice of not defending themselves. I think most people, myself included, find the moral choice IS to defend themselves. That is, I know that if I refuse to file or pay taxes, I can expect an audit, and further non-cooperation will invite the sheriff. If I am going to take that route, I am going to defend myself.

Otherwise, the statement has the opposite effect. So before I put my life on the line for principle, I am going to go the political route. I am going to try to force the changes I want to see through political process, holding those authorities accountable to the same laws I am held accountable to. Either way, I believe this invites violent confrontation where I will be needing to defend myself. I feel like at least through the political process, I give myself a chance to form alliances, or as an anarchist would call them, a private defense force.

[newbitech]

Hopefully that happens so society can evolve. Dissenters told the people that society could exist without feudalism, then society stopped having fixed positions for people in society. It has worked in the past.

YouTube - Ideas Change the World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RTHWrHovXU)

YouTube - A New Perspective (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs9GUUeskhM)

I am pretty sure feudalism ended in pools of blood, no?

[tremendoustie]

Yeah, I mean that is kind of my point. You either get involved or subject yourself to increasing physical violence. Sure philosophically what is occurring is violence in that people are forced to do things out of fear of actual violence. The people who disobey are physically forced to comply in the sense of being jailed. Jury Nullification sounds great, but it is the same physical threat that a judge can sequester a jury and lie to them about the process. And if a juror breaks sequester or if anyone tampers with jurors the threat for force and jail is there. All of these massive efforts require political activism. Gandhi faced violence, MLK faced violence.

Are you ready to go to jail for "making salt"? Is anyone?

Are you ready to be killed for advocating not paying taxes?

So yeah, not defending yourself and enduring physical violence OR political activism. These are the "moral" choices. In my mind, I don't even think most people are ready to deal with the moral choice of not defending themselves. I think most people, myself included, find the moral choice IS to defend themselves. That is, I know that if I refuse to file or pay taxes, I can expect an audit, and further non-cooperation will invite the sheriff. If I am going to take that route, I am going to defend myself.

Otherwise, the statement has the opposite effect. So before I put my life on the line for principle, I am going to go the political route. I am going to try to force the changes I want to see through political process, holding those authorities accountable to the same laws I am held accountable to. Either way, I believe this invites violent confrontation where I will be needing to defend myself. I feel like at least through the political process, I give myself a chance to form alliances, or as an anarchist would call them, a private defense force.

These are good points. The important thing, I think, is to recognize that the goal is non-aggression. Every person has their own way of working towards that, and they should do what interests and excites them most. One can recognize that the state as we know it is immoral, but still work within the state to reduce the harm that it does, and to transform it into a legitimate organization.

Personally, I am far more willing to go to jail or be killed, than to kill someone else. I'm not quite at the point where I'm ready to go to jail, but I'm getting there. I focus more on education, supporting the civil disobedience of others by doing legwork or donating money, and doing light civil disobedience myself. I definitely vote though, and occasionally donate money towards political efforts. IMO it's often a good idea to work on more than one front.

[leipo]

...Is so utterly ignorant it almost makes me lose my mind. This retarded soundbyte has been getting more usage as of late.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/10/844634/-Markos-to-Rush:-Want-libertarian-health-care-Try-Somalia.

A word to the wise - learn about Somalia first before you open your mouth about it. Dumbass.


/rant

That's a pretty ironic statement, seeing as Markos describes himself as a Libertarian Democrat.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/7/131550/7297

[mczerone]

that is the point, without a strong central government, every jerk off who has enough friends with guns becomes his own government and they all go to war against each other. welcome to the results of anarchy.
you can't force people not to form these malicious government unless you have one that is more powerful than theirs.
Maybe if you just went and talked to them about the goodness of non-violence, then they'd just stop.

Without the possibility of "winning" the recognition by the UN as "the central govt" of Somalia, there was productivity and general peace. When the UN and US got involved to force the formation of a central authority, fighting began.

See, e.g. http://mises.org/daily/2212, or http://mises.org/daily/2066.

Evil, as you are so afraid of, is forced out of the market when people can choose their way of life, but whenever offices of force are instituted by fiat, evil can do nothing but thrive and grow.

[LibForestPaul]

for some reason, we don't have the same problem here as they do in somalia, maybe the tin badges work. let's ship some to africa.


Limited government, a necessary tyranny, someone already figured this out a couple of hundred years ago, no? :D

[tremendoustie]

I am pretty sure feudalism ended in pools of blood, no?

Actually, no, as I understand it -- feudalism largely ended because of economic factors. Production increased, population exploded, urban centers became stronger, and merchants became more powerful than feudal lords.

[tremendoustie]

Limited government, a necessary tyranny, someone already figured this out a couple of hundred years ago, no? :D

How do you mean they "figured it out"? Did they also "figure out" that slavery was necessary and good, and so wrote it into the constitution as well? The fact that something occurred in history doesn't mean it was necessary. We were far better off under the Articles of Confederation, than the Constitution. The anti-federalists were right.

And once again, they have plenty of governments in Somalia, most of which are even worse than ours.

[Andrew-Austin]

anarchist claim somalia as an example of governmentless utopia, not libertarians.

I thought you were more honest than that to completely misrepresent other people's views, shame. Maybe you are just so concerned with what a bunch of Kostard socialists think you need to attack anything too radical in order to "clean up" libertarianism for them?

The anarchists who do consider Somalia to be an example of a stateless society only point out they are considerably better off than they would be if there were an official Somalia government, and the gradual progression of civilization is ongoing.

You know (at least honest libertarians do) perfectly well that the United States relatively superior living standards can't be attributed to the existence of state monopolies and central planning. The opposite is true with Somalia, they would only be much worse off with a government (easily proven by looking at the history of the country only a short while ago when they had a government).

Anyways.., we pay witness to the chaos the state brings us everyday first hand, and given the present course that chaos will translate in to blatant large scale suffering and perhaps even violent turmoil. I'm perfectly willing to accept (despite there being examples in the past and its seemingly theoretical soundness) that it is unproven preferable conditions in a stateless society can hold. But you should let your attitude reflect that minarchism is also an unproven theory, cut the pretension and admit statism has yet to show that it can maintain anything ideal for very long at all.



Somalia is a good example of what we don't want.

You are right in the sense that we want more capital accumulation than they have and a more educated populace, something a government could never conceivably provide but something markets can over time (Somalia only lacking an official ruling class for less than twenty years I believe).



If you can't deal with the fact that evil men will always gain power, your system isn't viable.

That is got to be one of the most silliest, ignorant, or perhaps just pessimistic thing I have heard on this forum in a while.

Always? With any "system" given any pool of people? You can't even strawman without sounding ridiculous. If you actually meant that then you might as well accept the philosophy of defeatism and start rooting for the bad guys.


For instance, those private companies you harp about- what is your plan to keep in check tyrants who gain control over those companies?

It is apparent to me you lack any amount of genuine curiosity or openness to be worth typing up a long reply (or series of replies) to respond to this.

[Fox McCloud]

it is interesting to note, though, the Somalia, since it has zero government regulation in telecom, it has the lowest phone rates in all of Africa.

[newbitech]

Actually, no, as I understand it -- feudalism largely ended because of economic factors. Production increased, population exploded, urban centers became stronger, and merchants became more powerful than feudal lords.


I was guess I was thinking on the failure of the crusades, the black plague, peasant revolts, for hire mercs, and oppressive central government (kings). I can definitely see how economics was the driving force behind all of these.

[tremendoustie]

I was guess I was thinking on the failure of the crusades, the black plague, peasant revolts, for hire mercs, and oppressive central government (kings). I can definitely see how economics was the driving force behind all of these.

There definitely was a degree of force as well as happenstance, in addition to economics. It's often true, though, that tyranny and abuse can be stopped without widespread bloodshed. There have been a number of bloodless revolutions over the years, and many more examples of abusive systems that simply became outdated. Look at how the USSR collapsed, Indian independence, or how slavery was ended in practically every nation but our own.

[Imperial]

that is the point, without a strong central government, every jerk off who has enough friends with guns becomes his own government and they all go to war against each other. welcome to the results of anarchy.
you can't force people not to form these malicious government unless you have one that is more powerful than theirs.
Maybe if you just went and talked to them about the goodness of non-violence, then they'd just stop.

Yeah, because that strong central government really helped the Taliban, Iraq, and the Shah in Iran....

It was the meddling of foreign GOVERNMENT that destroyed the native centralized government! This isn't about anarchy; its about government imposed anarchy (which sounds alot like public-private partnerships- you get the worst of both!)

[torchbearer]

Yeah, because that strong central government really helped the Taliban, Iraq, and the Shah in Iran....

It was the meddling of foreign GOVERNMENT that destroyed the native centralized government! This isn't about anarchy; its about government imposed anarchy (which sounds alot like public-private partnerships- you get the worst of both!)

government imposed anarchy?
like our current government?

[Imperial]

government imposed anarchy?
like our current government?

Not quite. Our country hasn't had the favor of being physically occupied by another country. But that is only because our government is stronger than the others. But might has never made right either.

[torchbearer]

Not quite. Our country hasn't had the favor of being physically occupied by another country. But that is only because our government is stronger than the others. But might has never made right either.

what i was thinking about when i mentioned our government- since, they have decided their are no rules, no boundary to their power- they make up whatever they want and are bound by no rules. the result is a land of no real law, no real authority- thus, its just an anarchy that has a result of a really powerful "protection agency" that has no equal.
this isn't a republic based on law and order, but one based on might makes right.
law of the jungle. anarchy.

[tmosley]

Ummm, Somalia does have government. The problem is that they have hundreds of governments all fighting each other for control, and the country itself suffers from decades of economic stagnation as a result of socialist policies by the previous dictator.

Some aspects of free markets have emerged there, such as individual claims to the sea ("pirates"), and lower phone rates, as Fox mentioned, but overall, the majority of the people there suffer from too much in the way of local government. They have the POTENTIAL to become a libertarian paradise, since local warlords are far more easy to throw off that centralized governments, and the fact that if any local warlord becomes too corrupt, his domain will lose power.

[torchbearer]

Ummm, Somalia does have government. The problem is that they have hundreds of governments all fighting each other for control, and the country itself suffers from decades of economic stagnation as a result of socialist policies by the previous dictator.

Some aspects of free markets have emerged there, such as individual claims to the sea ("pirates"), and lower phone rates, as Fox mentioned, but overall, the majority of the people there suffer from too much in the way of local government. They have the POTENTIAL to become a libertarian paradise, since local warlords are far more easy to throw off that centralized governments, and the fact that if any local warlord becomes too corrupt, his domain will lose power.

and in the absence of government, what happens? many smaller governments arise. how does that happen?

[Theocrat]

I'd just like to butt in and say that both torchbearer and newbitech have made some strong and logical analyses against the supposed success of anarchy, using the current state of Somalia as an example. Keep up the good discussion because you're revealing the true weaknesses of an anarchical society (which anarchists struggle to admit) right before the eyes of the forum members reading this thread. It is a very fruitful and needful discussion, if I may say so. :)

[tremendoustie]

I'd just like to butt in and say that both torchbearer and newbitech have made some strong and logical analyses against the supposed success of anarchy, using the current state of Somalia as an example. Keep up the good discussion because you're revealing the true weaknesses of an anarchical society (which anarchists struggle to admit) right before the eyes of the forum members reading this thread. It is a very fruitful and needful discussion, if I may say so. :)

Oh gawd :rolleyes:

Do you still not get it? Simply eliminating the current government in itself is not the solution. In a society full of people who find aggressive violence an acceptable way to interact, more, smaller governments will arise, as they have in Somalia. Instead, people need to stand against aggressive violence. The biggest, most powerful group needs to be free individuals, who refuse to tolerate aggressive violence, and who support organizations which stop those who would perpetrate aggressive violence. Because average people simply want to live peaceably, and have their persons and property protected, agencies supported by these people will be far more powerful than the random gang.

I've said this to you before. It's not rocket science.

[torchbearer]

I'd just like to butt in and say that both torchbearer and newbitech have made some strong and logical analyses against the supposed success of anarchy, using the current state of Somalia as an example. Keep up the good discussion because you're revealing the true weaknesses of an anarchical society (which anarchists struggle to admit) right before the eyes of the forum members reading this thread. It is a very fruitful and needful discussion, if I may say so. :)

I've been debating anarchs since 1996. I actually understand their position. I feel it deep inside. I know how they get there. I went there myself. I followed the philosophy to its logical conlusion.
Here is the problem. Reality. And the only way they can reconcile reality with philosophy is to create private government with private military, etc. But its still a government and still able to destroy your liberties just as fast.

Thomas Jefferson wasn't a fucking idiot. Neither were madison and locke and others... there is a reason the hairless apes got together in governmental arrangements to begin with.

I compare anarchy to marxism in the sense that it sounds good on paper, but is worth a shit when it comes to dealing with real-world humanity.
We are fighting people who think its just fine to live off of other people's efforts. They will always be here. We have to deal with this fact.

I'd love to dream about how wonderful it would be to have no governments, no one bothering me, etc. But it is a dream. We should always be pulling government in the direction of minimal duties because there will always be thieves who pull it the other way.

We are where we are today because people like us don't want power, so we leave it in the hands of tyrants. That is where we fail.
And anyone who suggest we shouldn't participate is aiding those tyrants.

[tremendoustie]

and in the absence of government, what happens? many smaller governments arise. how does that happen?

Only if there are not large numbers of people who do not tolerate aggressive violence, and who have created organizations to defend themselves and other innocents from those who would perpetrate violence.

[torchbearer]

Only if there are not large numbers of people who do not tolerate aggressive violence, and who have created organizations to defend them and other innocents from those who would perpetrate violence.

Anarchy works if everyone leaves everyone else alone. :rolleyes:

[Theocrat]

Oh gawd :rolleyes:

Do you still not get it? Simply eliminating the current government in itself is not the solution. In a society full of people who find aggressive violence an acceptable way to interact, more, smaller governments will arise, as they have in Somalia. Instead, people need to stand against aggressive violence. The biggest, most powerful group needs to be free individuals, who refuse to tolerate aggressive violence, and who support organizations which stop those who would perpetrate aggressive violence. Because average people simply want to live peaceably, and have their persons and property protected, agencies supported by these people will be far more powerful than the random gang.

I've said this to you before. It's not rocket science.

Yes, and I think I've continually explained to you that,

The civil government is a righteous institution ordained by God (Exodus 18, Romans 13, 1 Peter 2, et. al.)
Its sole purpose is to punish (or be coercive) towards evildoers not law-abiding citizens, or else we have the wrong people in government, and
It's not the institution that is evil but the people who control the institution.

You can have law-abiding citizens who fight against unlawful aggression of their civil magistrate by 1) the confession box, 2) the soap box, 3) the ballot box, and/or 4) the ammo box.

You continually have no Biblical justification for equating the civil government to being an institution of slavery or theft (as you often do), and for claiming to be a Christian, I am ashamed for the inconsistency of your profession with God's revelation. So, I leave with you, as with others that argue against the civil magistrate, this bold proclamation from God, as recorded in Romans 13:1, 2:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
God does not stutter.

[tremendoustie]

I've been debating anarchs since 1996. I actually understand their position. I feel it deep inside. I know how they get there. I went there myself. I followed the philosophy to its logical conlusion.
Here is the problem. Reality. And the only way they can reconcile reality with philosophy is to create private government with private military, etc. But its still a government and still able to destroy your liberties just as fast.


That's why you have a number of different competing agencies. If one becomes abusive, you can immediately shift your funds to a competitor. It's a heck of a lot better accountability than voting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum every four years, to preside over a government bureaucrats which never change.

It seems to me that you do not understand the philosophy well.

Do you really think the only way to provide justice, roads, enforcement, etc, is by extortion and monopoly?



Thomas Jefferson wasn't a fucking idiot. Neither were madison and locke and others...


They were brilliant, and helped create one of the most free societies ever conceived by man. They were willing to innovate. They weren't perfect (see slavery, taxation), but they lived over 200 years ago, and what they did was absolutely extraordinary for the time. They were called crazy for thinking "self government" could work. They were called Utopian.

Now, you're the one using the Utopian label against those who want to work for a more free society. If you really shared their spirit, you would be willing to innovate, to try new things.



there is a reason the hairless apes got together in governmental arrangements to begin with.


Actually, the first thing the hairless apes did is run around with clubs, kidnap each other's wives, and enslave them. It's from this proud tradition that government was born.

We've been innovating since then, increasing personal liberty, and individual rights. It's time to innovate again.



I compare anarchy to marxism in the sense that it sounds good on paper, but is worth a shit when it comes to dealing with real-world humanity.
We are fighting people who think its just fine to live off of other people's efforts. They will always be here. We have to deal with this fact.


We used to have people who thought slavery was fine and good, or at least tolerable. Heck, Madison and Jefferson were two of them. How many of those are still around, eh?



I'd love to dream about how wonderful it would be to have no governments, no one bothering me, etc. But it is a dream. We should always be pulling government in the direction of minimal duties because there will always be thieves who pull it the other way.


Sure. I'm just saying we should pull in the direction of nonagression -- we should not tolerate what is obviously immoral behavior.



We are where we are today because people like us don't want power, so we leave it in the hands of tyrants. That is where we fail.
And anyone who suggest we shouldn't participate is aiding those tyrants.

I think we should participate. Political activity can be a great tool to increase liberty.

[torchbearer]

That's why you have a number of different competing agencies. If one becomes abusive, you can immediately shift your funds to a competitor. It's a heck of a lot better accountability than voting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum every four years, to preside over a government bureaucrats which never change.

It seems to me that you do not understand the philosophy well.

Do you really think the only way to provide justice, roads, enforcement, etc, is by extortion and monopoly?



They were brilliant, and helped create one of the most free societies ever conceived by man. They were willing to innovate. They weren't perfect (see slavery, taxation), but they lived over 200 years ago, and what they did was absolutely extraordinary for the time. They were called crazy for thinking "self government" could work. They were called Utopian.

Now, you're the one using the Utopian label against those who want to work for a more free society. If you really shared their spirit, you would be willing to innovate, to try new things.



Actually, the first thing the hairless apes did is run around with clubs, kidnap each other's wives, and enslave them. It's from this proud tradition that government was born.

We've been innovating since then, increasing personal liberty, and individual rights. It's time to innovate again.



We used to have people who thought slavery was fine and good, or at least tolerable. Heck, Madison and Jefferson were two of them. How many of those are still around, eh?



Sure. I'm just saying we should pull in the direction of nonagression -- we should not tolerate what is obviously immoral behavior.



I think we should participate. Political activity can be a great tool to increase liberty.

I've never seen so many words written but no answers given.
very disappointing.

[torchbearer]

For instance, you mention funding as if it would be voluntary, but that is not the case. A tyrannical protection agency doesn't need your permission to take your resources.

The founders did know that evil men would take power, their failure was in assuming that limited government people would stay involved in politics. that is not the case. i mentioned, that is our greatest failure.

On slavery, i don't know the founders minds, but no one sees using a horse for labor as slavery because its an animal. if someone viewed dark skin, less technical beings from africa as animals. it would make sense. something we studied in sociology was how these perceptions were developed. (yes, i know the official word and science called sociology wasn't invented until later, but people were studying those ideas long before it)

To pull a lever for Ron Paul is to say I want minimal government, because that is what he offers. not anarchy. we should not forget that. But what would be better than a true functioning constitutional republic?
the question is- is that a pipe dream? if so, we are already doomed. we are already dead. start dumping dirt on your body.

[tremendoustie]

Yes,


Then why did you bring up the Somalia example yet again, when you know it is a strawman?



and I think I've continually explained to you that,

The civil government is a righteous institution ordained by God (Exodus 18, Romans 13, 1 Peter 2, et. al.

Exodus 18 does not describe Moses using aggressive violence. He's simply sitting as a judge. What's more, this was the direct will of God, who does actually own creation.

Romans 13 is not an endorsement of any government. Paul himself disobeyed governments on many occasions. See http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/07/chuck-baldwin-romans-chapter-13-revisited/

I don't disagree with governments per-se. I disagree with aggressive violence. It's possible to have a "government" -- an organization to stop those who harm others, and hold them accountable, without using aggressive violence. The same goes for 1 Peter 2. If a government behaves morally, I support it.






Its sole purpose is to punish (or be coercive) towards evildoers not law-abiding citizens, or else we have the wrong people in government, and

Ok, if a government does not use aggressive violence, I've got no problem with it. It is those behaviors of people in government, which are immoral, which I oppose.





It's not the institution that is evil but the people who control the institution.

It depends on your definition of the "institution". If you include immoral behaviors as inherent to the institution, I oppose it. If you don't, I can support the institution.



You can have law-abiding citizens who fight against unlawful aggression of their civil magistrate by 1) the confession box, 2) the soap box, 3) the ballot box, and/or 4) the ammo box.


How about peaceful civil disobedience? I assume you must support that, if you support #4. That's my favored method. And what about the jury box?



You continually have no Biblical justification for equating the civil government to being an institution of slavery or theft (as you often do),


If I did what those in the government do, you'd have no problem identifying it as theft. You excuse immoral behavior in government.




and for claiming to be a Christian, I am ashamed for the inconsistency of your profession with God's revelation. So, I leave with you, as with others that argue against the civil magistrate, this bold proclamation from God, as recorded in Romans 13:1, 2:


So, we're not supposed to resist any government, then, eh? Why, let's just go right along with the Nazis, because God endorses them. Or, perhaps we could have a more reasonable interpretation of this passage ...

I wonder how this squares with #4? Using the "ammo box" doesn't count as "resisting"!?



God does not stutter.

I do not have the same view of inspiration that you do. These words were written by Paul, who was an apostle, and were rightly included in the Bible by the council of Nicaea. I do not believe God literally wrote these words.

[tremendoustie]

I've never seen so many words written but no answers given.
very disappointing.

I directly responded to your points. What question do you want answered?

[tremendoustie]

For instance, you mention funding as if it would be voluntary, but that is not the case. A tyrannical protection agency doesn't need your permission to take your resources.


Why do you think the federal government does not become completely tyrannical now? Why do you think they do not confiscate all guns, the president declare himself dictator for life, political opposition outlawed, etc?

All of the things that would prevent the government from doing so, would prevent a protection agency from doing so, with the following powerful additions:


1. Competition. There will be many competing protection agencies, which would quickly band together against the rogue. Also, people could easily and swiftly switch to a competitor, draining the rogue protection agency of resources, and bolstering the opposition.

This advantage does not exist with government -- government does not allow competition in protection services, nor does it obtain funding voluntarily, so there is no alternative ready to challenge a government should it become oppressive, and there is no way for people to "vote with their wallets" and remove support if the government starts to go out of control. If our power hungry individual takes over the government, they are far less easily opposed.

Monopolies always provide worse services and are far less accountable -- for forced monopolies, rather than natural ones, this is especially so.

2. No illusion of legitimacy. In a free society, no action would be considered legitimate if it uses aggressive force. By contrast, in our current situation, people believe government -- or the majority -- has the right to do what they will with the finances and lives of others. Many people who would never break into a neighbor's house, steal their TV, sell it, and use the money to help the poor, for example, will nonetheless support welfare, because of this false idea that government is somehow exempt from the moral code. This same false idea causes those with moral opposition to a government action, for example, to believe that they still must fund it with their taxes. After all, "majority rules". This illusion of legitimacy would also not exist in their "troops". Their personnel would likely desert them after their attempted takeover. There would be no "don't think, just obey orders" propaganda as there is for the military, police, etc.

3. No ready made power structure. In order to obtain taxes, government must create the necessary structure, including information on whatever is to be taxed -- trade, income, etc, and the means to enforce tax collection. In a free society, protection agencies and other services would send you a bill at the end of the month, and might eventually refuse service if the bills are not paid, but they do not have the ability to obtain information on income, etc. A potential tyrant would have to create the entire tax structure from scratch, as well as any other power structures he/she wished to obtain -- no easy feat.

This limitation does not exist in government, where the necessary structures are already in place for tyranny -- ready made for the tyrant's use, including at least taxation, but also usually secret agencies, tools for domestic espionage, border control, military, fiscal and trade controls, etc. Couple this with a populace taught that normal morality does not apply to government -- that government (police, FBI, IRS, etc) must always be obeyed, and the enforced ban on all competition, and you have a recipe for disaster. One which has occurred repeatedly through history, and continues to occur today.



The founders did know that evil men would take power, their failure was in assuming that limited government people would stay involved in politics. that is not the case. i mentioned, that is our greatest failure.


It's far more difficult to be involved in politics -- to really hold your "representatives" feet to the fire -- than to simply choose the agency that best meets your needs at the best price.

That's why nokia makes better, lighter, cheaper phones every year, and the department of education gets more incompetent and more expensive every year.

The market is a far better means of accountability than elections.



On slavery, i don't know the founders minds, but no one sees using a horse for labor as slavery because its an animal. if someone viewed dark skin, less technical beings from africa as animals. it would make sense. something we studied in sociology was how these perceptions were developed. (yes, i know the official word and science called sociology wasn't invented until later, but people were studying those ideas long before it)


I think the differences between a black man and a horse are quite clear. Even if they were not, however, you recognize that immorality was encoded in the constitution -- for whatever reason. These men were not gods, and the document is not scripture. It was a great innovation, but it's not perfect.



To pull a lever for Ron Paul is to say I want minimal government, because that is what he offers. not anarchy.


He's working for more liberty, same as all of us. I'll support anyone who does.



we should not forget that. But what would be better than a true functioning constitutional republic?


A society which does not tolerate theft, or other immoral activity, even if it is performed by a certain class of individuals, or individuals with a certain title. A society which creates institutions for itself based on this principle, to defend itself against those who would use aggressive violence.



the question is- is that a pipe dream? if so, we are already doomed. we are already dead. start dumping dirt on your body.

I used to think the road to a voluntaryist society would most likely lead through a constitutional republic. I now think the federal government may be too far gone, and the most likely path includes secession.

[Theocrat]

Then why did you bring up the Somalia example yet again, when you know it is a strawman?

Somalia is not a strawman. It's only a strawman, to you, because you have no way of reconciling its failings with the promises of peace and prosperity so adamantly promoted by anarchy proponents. That gets back to the excellent points brought up by newbitech and torchbearer in this thread. I think they've shown how Somalia, with its absence of a central-style government, has only brought about destruction and misery for its inhabitants.

You're committing a common technique in debate when someone's view/belief/evidence has been exposed to shift away from it by claiming a strawman has been created by the opposing side. If Somalia is not an example of anarchy, then what is it? It's definitely not a constitutional republic.



[/LIST]
Exodus 18 does not describe Moses using aggressive violence. He's simply sitting as a judge. What's more, this was the direct will of God, who does actually own creation.

Romans 13 is not an endorsement of any government. Paul himself disobeyed governments on many occasions. See http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/07/chuck-baldwin-romans-chapter-13-revisited/

I don't disagree with governments per-se. I disagree with aggressive violence. It's possible to have a "government" -- an organization to stop those who harm others, and hold them accountable, without using aggressive violence. The same goes for 1 Peter 2. If a government behaves morally, I support it.



[/LIST]
Ok, if a government does not use aggressive violence, I've got no problem with it. It is those behaviors of people in government, which are immoral, which I oppose.


[/LIST]
It depends on your definition of the "institution". If you include immoral behaviors as inherent to the institution, I oppose it. If you don't, I can support the institution.

It seems your underlying premise is that aggressive violence is wrong, and for the most part, I agree with you. However, aggressive violence is never evil when its used against a violent/immoral offender. That, of course, begs the question of what a "violent/immoral offender" is, and I would then derive my definitions through Holy Scripture, as you well know.


How about peaceful civil disobedience? I assume you must support that, if you support #4. That's my favored method. And what about the jury box?

I do support peaceful civil disobedience. In my haste to finish the post, I mistakenly forgot to add the jury box to my list. So, yes, I believe in using that (between the ballot and ammo boxes). ;)


If I did what those in the government do, you'd have no problem identifying it as theft. You excuse immoral behavior in government.

I do not excuse those in government who act immorally. However, I don't agree with you that all taxation is theft, and therefore, immoral. That's why I asked you to show me in Scripture (as my Christian brother) where that ethic is tied to the tribute of civil magistrates. You haven't shown me that yet, and I don't think you can, my brother.


So, we're not supposed to resist any government, then, eh? Why, let's just go right along with the Nazis, because God endorses them. Or, perhaps we could have a more reasonable interpretation of this passage ...

I wonder how this squares with #4? Using the "ammo box" doesn't count as "resisting"!?

I never said that. When the government acts immorally, it is our civic duty to disobey and even rebel against the government (as Peter, Paul, and other Christians did in their time). At this moment, I'm struggling to remember the passages in Scripture for such times of civic rebellion allowed by God, but I would justify that action by those Biblical accounts. If any Christians are reading this and a passage comes to mind, help me out.


I do not have the same view of inspiration that you do. These words were written by Paul, who was an apostle, and were rightly included in the Bible by the council of Nicaea. I do not believe God literally wrote these words.

Where does that assumption come from? Is it based on the words of fallible men, or the promises of God in His word that He would preserve His words to all generations (i.e. Psalm 12: 6, 7; Matthew 24:35; 2 Peter 1:21)?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Theocrat]

The problem I have with the concept of limited constitutional government is also reality. The reality of history regarding the monopoly of force. Might has made right throughout history. This is a self evident truth. As soon as you allow might to establish a monopoly it is eventually game over.

Despite any personal fondness I have of American traditions in freedom I do not think there is a perfect solution to society but I do believe history has clearly shown competition is the friendliest system on earth to the individual.

If I am to take a "great leap of faith" in civilized society I would rather place it in competition than monopoly. I would rather empower responsible individual behavior instead of empowering irresponsible individual behavior.

I hope the people of Somalia are able to remain on course. They have a rocky road ahead of them because anarchy is an affront to the state which is essentially all nations on earth. This is why the international community has spent billions of dollars seeking to force an unpopular transitional government on the people. This is what they will continue to be up against and we are not blameless for the actions of our own government. The international community can not just go in, level the place, and openly commit atrocities. They must do it in secret behind the scenes and use agencies like the CIA.

As one who believes in limited government, I reject the claim that civil government has a monopoly on force. I reject that claim on two grounds:

The use of the term "monopoly" is an economic term which should have no place in the discussion of a civic institution like a civil government. No "minarchist" assumes that limited government has to exist for monetary gain. That assumption comes from the ancaps, and it's a false assumption to apply on an institution which has nothing to do with profits in the market. The government is a ministry of justice. So stop using the term "monopoly of force."
"Minarchists" believe that force can be used in self-defense and/or discipline, so it's not that the State gets exclusively use it for itself. I'm sure "minarchists" and anarchists alike would agree that the State uses too much force in the lives of its citizens. And let me state it up front that I vehemently disagree that the State should punish people for not paying taxes by taking their property or life. That is unlawful force, by my understanding. However, taxes are needed for services that benefit all in society (like justice and roads, for example), so I think it is wise and obligatory for citizens to pay tribute in those areas. So, force is not an instrument that only the magistrate gets to wield. Its use of force should be righteous towards those who commit immoral civic acts.

[heavenlyboy34]

I've been debating anarchs since 1996. I actually understand their position. I feel it deep inside. I know how they get there. I went there myself. I followed the philosophy to its logical conlusion.
Here is the problem. Reality. And the only way they can reconcile reality with philosophy is to create private government with private military, etc. But its still a government and still able to destroy your liberties just as fast.

Thomas Jefferson wasn't a fucking idiot. Neither were madison and locke and others... there is a reason the hairless apes got together in governmental arrangements to begin with.

I compare anarchy to marxism in the sense that it sounds good on paper, but is worth a shit when it comes to dealing with real-world humanity.
We are fighting people who think its just fine to live off of other people's efforts. They will always be here. We have to deal with this fact.

I'd love to dream about how wonderful it would be to have no governments, no one bothering me, etc. But it is a dream. We should always be pulling government in the direction of minimal duties because there will always be thieves who pull it the other way.

We are where we are today because people like us don't want power, so we leave it in the hands of tyrants. That is where we fail.
And anyone who suggest we shouldn't participate is aiding those tyrants.

So you think Harry Browne was aiding tyranny? Lysander Spooner? Yeshua al-Yosif? :eek:

[tremendoustie]

Somalia is not a strawman. It's only a strawman, to you, because you have no way of reconciling its failings with the promises of peace and prosperity so adamantly promoted by anarchy proponents.


I believe there will be peace and prosperity in a society which stands up for the NAP. Not in any society which does not have a powerful central government.



That gets back to the excellent points brought up by newbitech and torchbearer in this thread. I think they've shown how Somalia, with its absence of a central-style government, has only brought about destruction and misery for its inhabitants.


It would be just as logical for me to argue that the destruction and misery caused by the central government in North Korea proves that the central government of a constitutional republic would also cause destruction and misery. They're both central governments, after all!

Not all societies with central governments are the same, and not all societies without central governments are the same.



You're committing a common technique in debate when someone's view/belief/evidence has been exposed to shift away from it by claiming a strawman has been created by the opposing side. If Somalia is not an example of anarchy, then what is it? It's definitely not a constitutional republic.

It's anarchy, just as North Korea is a government. The form of anarchy I support is not that of Somalia, just as the form of government you support is not that of North Korea. I support a society of individuals who stand up for the NAP, and whose institutions are built on that principle, and defend that principle.

This is why I think calling voluntarism "anarchy" is such an awful idea. It's like calling constitutional republicanism "central governmentism", and then being surprised when people object that Hitler and Mao didn't work out so well.



It seems your underlying premise is that aggressive violence is wrong, and for the most part, I agree with you. However, aggressive violence is never evil when its used against a violent/immoral offender. That, of course, begs the question of what a "violent/immoral offender" is, and I would then derive my definitions through Holy Scripture, as you well know.


If violence is being used to stop the violence of another person, it's not aggressive, it's defensive. It's only when it's used against peaceful people, who are not harming others, that it becomes aggressive.



I do support peaceful civil disobedience. In my haste to finish the post, I mistakenly forgot to add the jury box to my list. So, yes, I believe in using that (between the ballot and ammo boxes). ;)


Cool :)



I do not excuse those in government who act immorally. However, I don't agree with you that all taxation is theft, and therefore, immoral. That's why I asked you to show me in Scripture (as my Christian brother) where that ethic is tied to the tribute of civil magistrates. You haven't shown me that yet, and I don't think you can, my brother.


What form of taxation do you believe is not theft?

I do not think there is a scripture that calls taxation theft, if that is what you're looking for. However, I do not think there is a logical distinction between "taxes" as we know them, and theft. I would challenge you to describe a form of taxation which you believe is not theft, and describe the precise circumstances under which it is not theft.



I never said that. When the government acts immorally, it is our civic duty to disobey and even rebel against the government (as Peter, Paul, and other Christians did in their time). At this moment, I'm struggling to remember the passages in Scripture for such times of civic rebellion allowed by God, but I would justify that action by those Biblical accounts. If any Christians are reading this and a passage comes to mind, help me out.


I agree, but the passage you quoted said:

"Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

If we're going with a word for word, literal reading of this passage, one should never resist any government.

If you want to know my view, I think this passage was written for a particular church with particular problems at that time. I think it is referring to authorities who are behaving morally. See, "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong."

Paul was executed for disobeying authorities when they were acting immorally.



Where does that assumption come from? Is it based on the words of fallible men, or the promises of God in His word that He would preserve His words to all generations (i.e. Psalm 12: 6, 7; Matthew 24:35; 2 Peter 1:21)?

I think it was written by men who were very close to God, and were inspired by Him. I think scripture contains a great deal of truth about God and about life which we would not otherwise know. I believe the historical accounts it contains are honest accounts from eyewitnesses. I do not, however, believe it was written literally by God, or dictated by him. I think it's foolish to take one scripture, read it narrowly, and use it to throw broader principles about God, right and wrong, etc, out the window. There is a narrow reading of a passage of scripture to justify almost anything.

[heavenlyboy34]

As one who believes in limited government, I reject the claim that civil government has a monopoly on force. I reject that claim on two grounds:

The use of the term "monopoly" is an economic term which should have no place in the discussion of a civic institution like a civil government. No "minarchist" assumes that limited government has to exist for monetary gain. That assumption comes from the ancaps, and it's a false assumption to apply on an institution which has nothing to do with profits in the market. The government is a ministry of justice. So stop using the term "monopoly of force."



Actually that is a valid use of the term "monopoly". You, like most minarchists, just nitpick like this when you want to distort terms in your favor.
mo·nop·o·ly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly)

1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/duopoly), oligopoly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oligopoly).
2.an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

3.the exclusive possession or control of something.

4.something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.

5.a company or group that has such control.

6.the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

7.(initial capital letterhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property.

[Theocrat]

For a person who supposedly professes christian beliefs you amaze me when you say something like states are ordained by god....



Not only is it an example of anarchy it is the best modern example of the lengths the nation states will go to in order to prevent people from being free from government.



The bible says give unto ceaser what is ceasers. That means if the property you use to facilitate trade is the property of the federal reserve or government render unto them what is due. The bible does not say render unto ceaser what is not ceasars.

If dominion over the earth has been freely given then it can logically be argued give unto satan what is satan's. But if dominion over the earth is under god and the earth has been given to man then government has no authority over man. So which is it?

So at what point do you owe? And who do you owe? If combine your own energy (which is your property) with natural resources (whose property is the earth exactly?)...

If the state is the duly ordained magistrate to collect what is due for the use of natural resources on the earth then the church must be committing fraud collecting an additional 10% tithe.

ruh roh... big concepts have entered the thread...[Emphasis mine]

Yes, the Bible does say render to Caesar's what is Caesar's, but you forgot to include the part where it says render unto God the things which are God's (Matthew 22:21). So, since God created all life, and thereby everything belongs to Him, then what does that mean from the verse that we should render unto God? ;)

You have a false assumption when you say the earth belongs to Satan. It does not. The Scriptures tell us in Colossians 1, Philippians 2, and Hebrews 1 (among other passages) that Jesus Christ is the ruler of all things and He has inherited the earth by His own death and resurrection for Himself and His Bride as the new Adam and Eve for dominion. Satan lost when Jesus died and rose again for the sins of the world. The world is not his, but God's.

You owe only what the government needs to execute its duties as God has ordained for it. When men begin to look to the earth for its primary sustenance and treasure (away from God), then, of course, God will allow those earthly things to be taken from them and given to another (like a government). The loss of property sometimes comes because men abdicate their devotion from the Creator to things created. However, the government, in principle, should not own anything which is not needful of its ministry to the people.

The tithe is for the service of the ecclesiastical officers of the Church. It goes back to the principle of offering the firstfruits of one's own wealth in the OT to the priestly officers. I would say, ideally, the State should not charge for taxes any percentage that exceeds that of the tithe. That is why the government needs to be limited to its God-ordained (I know you don't like that phrase) duties of punishing the wicked and praising the righteous.

So, Astro, does that answer your "big concepts"?

[Theocrat]

Actually that is a valid use of the term "monopoly". You, like most minarchists, just nitpick like this when you want to distort terms in your favor.
mo·nop·o·ly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly)

1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/duopoly), oligopoly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oligopoly).
2.an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

3.the exclusive possession or control of something.

4.something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.

5.a company or group that has such control.

6.the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

7.(initial capital letterhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property.

The civil government is not supposed to have total control (or a "monopoly," as you put it) on the use of force. Refer to my second bullet point of that post for more information about that.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[heavenlyboy34]

The civil government is not supposed to have total control (or a "monopoly," as you put it) on the use of force. Refer to my second bullet point of that post for more information about that.

But your idealistic theory doesn't matter if it doesn't match up with reality (unless you teach theory, of course...which you seem to do around here). ;)

[Theocrat]

Well that is what we are getting at here... leading up to free will.

Sinful man does not possess the free will to do what he ought to do as God prescribed. Sinful man only does what he wants to do, which, of course, is sin by living for himself. That is why we need a Savior, and that is why I reject free will. The will is not free when it does that which goes against God's law.


Who has title to your body? You or god? Is free will evidence to possessing the title to your own body? What was exchanged for title to your body?

Ok lets follow this through. If I use my labor who owns my body? If I own my body I do not need to render. If god owns my body then render unto god what is gods.

If god owns the earth then render unto god what is gods. So if I use my labor + natural resources who do I render to and for using my labor and who do I render for using natural resources?

On a side note why would you feel I should be double taxed based on old law that was replaced?

Stay tuned for...
If government is people... who have free will and title to their own body... how is government ordained by god exactly.

God owns our bodies and our property. In a very real sense, we are all just stewards on this earth. If you don't believe me, then consider the fact that all of your possessions which you think you own (even your life) will be snatched away from you by death and given to somebody else. No, property is a blessing of God to be used for His purposes and the benefit of mankind, which means not even the government can tell you what to do with your own property.

We are called to behave as God has commanded us to, in the institutions which He has ordained, namely, family, church and state. To deny the role of those institutions in human existence is to deny God's character and nature, for those institutions reflect Himself.

[Theocrat]

Who judges the merits of the use of force? Well that is a monopoly... control... would you feel better if instead of monopoly I used one of these words?

almighty, all-powerful, invincible, unstoppable, supreme, godlike

All of which convey the same concept... no competition.

"Competition." See, that's what I was getting at. It's not about competition when we discuss an institution which is supposed to uphold and defend something which competition can never bring--righteousness. Competition is for sports and the market. It's not a measuring rod for objective standards such as justice. That is why I don't like using the term "monopoly" with ancaps because it assumes a lack of competition of some kind. We're not even talking in that arena when we discuss the legitimacy of civil governments.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Theocrat]

Free will and sinful man are two different concepts and your talking out of your butt because I made a point that is so plain, simple, and obvious you are unable to refute it.

Free will is the evidence man has title to his own body.



Ok so let's say god created man and pondered gee... I own this clay. I want man to own his own body so *poof* free will. Now there was a contract and it is plain as day for all those who want to see it.



Jurisdiciton

While you are busy dancing around the bible trying to explain the most basic and simple concepts you struggle to articulate authority for government over man.... because it does not exist unless free will voluntarily enters into a contract by doing something like applying for a privilege in exchange for jurisdiction.

Stay tuned for...
Let your yes be your yes and your no be your no....


The reason competition is the friendly system to the individual is because of free will. Competition is the only way there can always exist an opportunity for a voluntary option that righteous people can support in a free will system of good and evil. Either always being a valid choice.

I've already explained to you why I reject free will. From a Biblical standpoint, men are spiritually dead. So how can spiritually dead people will themselves to do anything that is good (by God's standards)? Free will is about as real as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

However, let me show you how your appeal to free will actually works against you. If men possess free will, then men freely willed to have a government of their own based on a constitution (in the case of American republicanism). However, let's say that men freely willed the government to take away their liberties in exchange for more securities. Also, men decided that making laws on a standard of restrictions to the government was no longer good. They, of their own free will, decided that the majority would decide on what was good for all. From your appeal to free will, it seems that would be perfectly okay just because men supposedly have a free will to choose.

My point is having free will does not guarantee that good will always be produced from choices. And as I explained above, men are not capable of doing good things in a Godly manner if their will is enslaved by sin. Competition can be good, if it's in the right context (like choosing a gun you like). However, it is never good when using the gun to compete against others who don't own a gun (as in robbing them). It's good we can choose what things we like in a market and have a variety, but do not substitute competition and free will for compliance and righhteousness.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[johngr]

I'm not quite clear on what difference you think it makes if the "jerk off's" friends wear tin badges or not.

I'd think it would be much easier to develop creative strategies, individually and collectively to defend oneself against unorganized, amateur jerk-offs with zero perceived legimitacy than organized, professional, "legimate" ones. And I doubt the former would care if my cigarette pack had a 1 by 4 inch label waring me that if I smoke, my nuts will fall off (as just one small example of a legion of examples).


for some reason, we don't have the same problem here as they do in somalia, maybe the tin badges work. let's ship some to africa.

The sophisticated, organized, legimitized tyrants you have in the US have nothing to do with it. The only reason you don't have the same problem as they do in Somalia is that there isn't any great number of Somalians living there.

[__27__]

that is the point, without a strong central government, every jerk off who has enough friends with guns becomes his own government and they all go to war against each other. welcome to the results of anarchy.
you can't force people not to form these malicious government unless you have one that is more powerful than theirs.
Maybe if you just went and talked to them about the goodness of non-violence, then they'd just stop.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2009-07-01-top_ten_num6.png

[johngr]

This

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/somali-muslim-gangs-videotape-attacks-on-infidels-in-minnesota-video/

is part of the reason anarchism won't work Somalia as it only has thus far in history in Midieval Iceland, pre-Roman Saxony, and in the US Free West of the 1800s (a. k. a. the "Wild" West).

BTW, "Islam" is an effect, not a cause.

[andrewh817]

Its that whole humanity thing that gets in the way of a perfect utopia.

Somalia is a good example of what we don't want.

Stop assuming anarchists believe a world with no government is utopia! Attacking an ideology based on the proclamations of the least intelligent in that group will never convince anyone.



If you can't deal with the fact that evil men will always gain power, your system isn't viable.

Evil men will always gain power? I don't know about that, I like "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." And if that is true then the system WE HAVE NOW isn't viable because the evil men gain power in this monstrous government.



For instance, those private companies you harp about- what is your plan to keep in check tyrants who gain control over those companies?
not pay your dues? well, they don't need you to do that voluntarily when they can take it by force.

Ah, now come the "what if" scenarios....... what do you mean by a tyrant? You ask what someone's plan is without giving enough details for them to answer the question. If a gun-toting terrorist becomes the CEO of some company, I'll stop buying from that company....... pretty god damn simple. The notion that a terrorist could take over a company is pretty far-fetched anyways.

The company would fail under the terrorist unless they knew enough about economics to keep it afloat. If the terrorist attempted to force everyone to buy the products, at some point the ROI would be negative and the business would fail....... My point is, there's a free market solution for all these crazy "what-if" scenarios, and simply coming up with crazy situation after crazy situation doesn't convince any principled anarchist.

I can come up with crazy situation after crazy situation involving the system we have now, that I can actually give evidence to. So if an ideology is proven wrong by how many times it's been shown to fail, then my ideology is actually in better standing than yours.

[johnrocks]

Perhaps places like Afghanistan and Somalia is a reason not to be an anarchist; not a libertarian.

[LibForestPaul]

Psst, don't worry about anarchy, the mafia never existed.
Waste Management anyone?

[newbitech]

Stop assuming anarchists believe a world with no government is utopia! Attacking an ideology based on the proclamations of the least intelligent in that group will never convince anyone.



Evil men will always gain power? I don't know about that, I like "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." And if that is true then the system WE HAVE NOW isn't viable because the evil men gain power in this monstrous government.



Ah, now come the "what if" scenarios....... what do you mean by a tyrant? You ask what someone's plan is without giving enough details for them to answer the question. If a gun-toting terrorist becomes the CEO of some company, I'll stop buying from that company....... pretty god damn simple. The notion that a terrorist could take over a company is pretty far-fetched anyways.

The company would fail under the terrorist unless they knew enough about economics to keep it afloat. If the terrorist attempted to force everyone to buy the products, at some point the ROI would be negative and the business would fail....... My point is, there's a free market solution for all these crazy "what-if" scenarios, and simply coming up with crazy situation after crazy situation doesn't convince any principled anarchist.

I can come up with crazy situation after crazy situation involving the system we have now, that I can actually give evidence to. So if an ideology is proven wrong by how many times it's been shown to fail, then my ideology is actually in better standing than yours.


You know what I find remarkable is that many anarchist will claim that taxation is theft at the barrel of a gun, but when it comes to buying products from corporations that exploit and terrorize their "customers" that "theft" is just crazy talk. I would like to know if you have taken the time to go through all the products that you have in your house to find out what kind of terrorist you are supporting. Please make a list, because I am not real clear on how you are defining gun-toting terrorist CEO's of some company.

I think some of the biggest problems that we face in our world today is the interference of rule makers in economics. I believe free markets work only when those markets are truly free. One thing needs to be made clear tho. Security is not a commodity that can be traded like food or clothing or ipods etc..

If your standard for security is a free market version, then I would have to say that the market has spoken, and right now we are all getting crappy deals, BUT at least we are getting what we paid for.

No, I rather see security as a function of life. You either have it or you don't. So, who here wants to buy some freedom and liberty off me?

Oh and was Al Capone a good businessman or a good mobster? Either way, he broke up government "monopoly" on coercive violence and aggression, until he didn't. Looks like taxes got to him too. Funny, wonder what would have went down without the income tax back then?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[newbitech]

What our dear colleague newbitech is saying here is.....

THE MARKET IS WORKING JUST FINE. IF YOU WON'T STOP PAYING OR STAND UP NOW THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THERE IS A STATE OR NOT WHEN FACING A POWERFUL TYRANT. THAT MEANS IF YOU ARE UNWILLING TO STOP PAYING OR STAND UP NOW WHEN FACING A POWERFUL TYRANT YOU ARE FULL OF S**T TO TELL ANYONE THAT YOU WILL STAND UP OR STOP PAYING IF IN A STATELESS SOCIETY A TYRANT INFILTRATED IT AND PURCHASED A POWERFUL COMPANY!

I find your line of thought very compatible with...

DON'T CONVERT A NATURAL RIGHT TO A PRIVILEGE AND THEN BITCH ABOUT IT

And I concur...

Are you looking for any business partners :D

Precisely.
There is no reason and I mean NONE at all, that I can't start applying these principles in my life right now. Is it hard, hell yeah you betcha, because I am surrounded by neighbors, a town, a state, and a country, that has completely lost their way AS INDIVIDUALS and choose to live in the dark. Its really hard to get shit done when all I have is a little homemade candle to light my work area.

Now, that being said, I know that there are plenty of anarchist out there who are in the same struggle that I am in. I don't agree with the end result of anarchy, yet because I can't see how anarchy is going to work for me personally in my circumstances, yet. Hell, I can say the same thing about any philosophy or way of government. What I do know however, is that it is soo much better trying to accomplish my personal goals when those goals are shared.

In fact, I am way better off just having people to talk too that can understand my language. That little bit of extra light gives me what I need to be 10x's more efficient in everything that I do. I'd like to focus on bridge building within the Ron Paul support base. I have no doubt that the stronger the bonds we share as liberty lovers and supporters of Ron Paul, the more effective ALL of our personal goals, ideologies, actions, and education efforts will be.

One of the weakest areas that I think we have amongst our little online community is that of holding each other accountable for acting responsibly as individuals. This means that we really need to communicate better with each other what we are hoping to accomplish with our words and actions. As individuals, we ought to be living out those principles of freedom and liberty that we have been learning from the time we accepted the message and woke up.

Yes indeed, that message goes far beyond political activism, voting, letter writing, and money bombs. There is an underlying principle and ideology that I must strive to recognize in my daily life. There is no way anyone who is serious about lining up their personal lives with these principles and honestly compare their ideals to the circumstances that are occurring in Somalia. To me this is just ludicrous, because while on the surface, Somalia may appear to be displaying some form of principled anarchistic results, its pretty clear that no one living in any country who has running water, daily power, daily communications, etc etc is going to be willing to give those things up in order to pursue the type of lifestyle enjoyed by most Somalians.

Somalia is a superficial example of a free market, anarchistic society where from a distance, the absence of a powerful central government seems to be the ideal breading ground for the principles of liberty and freedom. Yet on just a cursory examination of an individual living in these circumstance, we can easily see that it is NOT in fact the individual who has achieved this "victory" of eliminating "the state". No, the fact is, Somalia collapsed under the weight of oppressive tyranny. This may be an example of how anarchy exists, but I don't think its an example of the type of anarchy that I have learned to accept as a sophisticated and evolved form of self-government that balances individual sovereignty with voluntary cooperative organization based on freedom.

I think the former is simply another talking point and distraction, and the later is just too damn inefficient in its infancy to be worth spending my time trying to establish until I can learn how to actually live out those principles without fail or blemish.

Yes, I would be interested in forming business alliances. I have to be careful with partnership and share distribution at this point because my "privileged" business partner is still a non-believer.

[TrayC]

Somalia is an example of Governments Gone Wild.


Absence of opposition is freedom & anarchy.

[newbitech]

Absence of opposition is freedom & anarchy.

Right, because I will only be free when no one disagrees with me. Well since I disagree with your opinion, am I oppressing your right to be free? I mean basically what I am reading is that freedom is impossible.

I think if you leave "freedom &" out of your sentence, then the sentence becomes more true. I think by setting up freedom and anarchy as equals in this statement, you are diluting both ideas. In many ways, freedom opposes anarchy and the absence of either of the two could easily facilitate the aggregation of the other.

Anarchy in the sense of diffuse government and voluntary cooperation among sovereign individuals occurs when individuals voluntarily give up a piece of their sovereignty without coercion. In other words, I'd have to give up some of freedom in order to have a functioning anarchy.

On the other hand, freedom in the sense of unalienable rights to do whatever the hell I want "responsibly" without causing harm to another or their property occurs when I as an individual agree not to cross certain boundaries. I'd have to give up some of my anarchist tendencies in order to get along in a free society. For instance, I can't just go around eating off of whatever fruit tree or vegetable garden that catches my eye.

So yeah, opposition is a natural part of being a human being. I think eliminating opposition will kill anarchy and a free society quicker than the two will kill each other.

[tremendoustie]

Precisely.
There is no reason and I mean NONE at all, that I can't start applying these principles in my life right now. Is it hard, hell yeah you betcha, because I am surrounded by neighbors, a town, a state, and a country, that has completely lost their way AS INDIVIDUALS and choose to live in the dark. Its really hard to get shit done when all I have is a little homemade candle to light my work area.

Now, that being said, I know that there are plenty of anarchist out there who are in the same struggle that I am in. I don't agree with the end result of anarchy, yet because I can't see how anarchy is going to work for me personally in my circumstances, yet. Hell, I can say the same thing about any philosophy or way of government. What I do know however, is that it is soo much better trying to accomplish my personal goals when those goals are shared.

In fact, I am way better off just having people to talk too that can understand my language. That little bit of extra light gives me what I need to be 10x's more efficient in everything that I do. I'd like to focus on bridge building within the Ron Paul support base. I have no doubt that the stronger the bonds we share as liberty lovers and supporters of Ron Paul, the more effective ALL of our personal goals, ideologies, actions, and education efforts will be.

One of the weakest areas that I think we have amongst our little online community is that of holding each other accountable for acting responsibly as individuals. This means that we really need to communicate better with each other what we are hoping to accomplish with our words and actions. As individuals, we ought to be living out those principles of freedom and liberty that we have been learning from the time we accepted the message and woke up.

Yes indeed, that message goes far beyond political activism, voting, letter writing, and money bombs. There is an underlying principle and ideology that I must strive to recognize in my daily life. There is no way anyone who is serious about lining up their personal lives with these principles and honestly compare their ideals to the circumstances that are occurring in Somalia. To me this is just ludicrous, because while on the surface, Somalia may appear to be displaying some form of principled anarchistic results, its pretty clear that no one living in any country who has running water, daily power, daily communications, etc etc is going to be willing to give those things up in order to pursue the type of lifestyle enjoyed by most Somalians.

Somalia is a superficial example of a free market, anarchistic society where from a distance, the absence of a powerful central government seems to be the ideal breading ground for the principles of liberty and freedom. Yet on just a cursory examination of an individual living in these circumstance, we can easily see that it is NOT in fact the individual who has achieved this "victory" of eliminating "the state". No, the fact is, Somalia collapsed under the weight of oppressive tyranny. This may be an example of how anarchy exists, but I don't think its an example of the type of anarchy that I have learned to accept as a sophisticated and evolved form of self-government that balances individual sovereignty with voluntary cooperative organization based on freedom.

I think the former is simply another talking point and distraction, and the later is just too damn inefficient in its infancy to be worth spending my time trying to establish until I can learn how to actually live out those principles without fail or blemish.

Yes, I would be interested in forming business alliances. I have to be careful with partnership and share distribution at this point because my "privileged" business partner is still a non-believer.

Good post.

[andrewh817]

You know what I find remarkable is that many anarchist will claim that taxation is theft at the barrel of a gun, but when it comes to buying products from corporations that exploit and terrorize their "customers" that "theft" is just crazy talk. I would like to know if you have taken the time to go through all the products that you have in your house to find out what kind of terrorist you are supporting. Please make a list, because I am not real clear on how you are defining gun-toting terrorist CEO's of some company.

I'm not defining it, I was asking torchbearer to define the situation with the terrorist. And what is this exploitation and terrorizing you speak of? Give me an example of a company (not one who lobbies the government) that exploits and terrorizes its customers.


I think some of the biggest problems that we face in our world today is the interference of rule makers in economics. I believe free markets work only when those markets are truly free. One thing needs to be made clear tho. Security is not a commodity that can be traded like food or clothing or ipods etc..

Physical protection is a service, just like car repair, just like dry cleaning, etc.....
What makes you think security would be the only service that would not transfer well to the free market?



Oh and was Al Capone a good businessman or a good mobster? Either way, he broke up government "monopoly" on coercive violence and aggression, until he didn't. Looks like taxes got to him too. Funny, wonder what would have went down without the income tax back then?

He was a good businessman. A "mobster" is just a successful businessman that operates outside the law. When things are prohibited by law, they always go up in price, thus making Capone successful at what he did. You don't see people selling alcohol on the streets.

[newbitech]

I'm not defining it, I was asking torchbearer to define the situation with the terrorist. And what is this exploitation and terrorizing you speak of? Give me an example of a company (not one who lobbies the government) that exploits and terrorizes its customers.


Physical protection is a service, just like car repair, just like dry cleaning, etc.....
What makes you think security would be the only service that would not transfer well to the free market?



He was a good businessman. A "mobster" is just a successful businessman that operates outside the law. When things are prohibited by law, they always go up in price, thus making Capone successful at what he did. You don't see people selling alcohol on the streets.

Commercials are exploitative. I won't show you my research, but just be prepared if you want to try to convince me that exploiting ignorance with advertising is OK. Terrorizing customers, ever dealt with a phone company? ATT comes to mind, as well as every other backbone ISP. Pull the covers back on these clowns and you'll see ONE example of corporations terrorizing customers.

If someone is willing to pay for something that someone else is willing to let go of or perform, then a market is created. So, who is willing to pay for physical protection? Yeah, someone who has a fear or concern of being harmed. So who is willing to perform that function? Yeah, someone who has not fear or concern of being harmed.

So now, in business, if you are looking to profit off of selling a good or a service, the first thing you do is determine where your market is. The you gauge that market to determine your market entry point to capture a percentage of that market share. Next you look for ways to expand the market. Of course if you are a monopoly and you expand the market, you end up with a 1:1 correlation of market expansion and your bottom line. Assuming that security or physical protection is something that should be traded or marketed freely, this dynamic between market expansion and profit doesn't change.

And how do markets expand? Increasing demand. In the physical security market, and security in general, how is demand created? You get the picture now. I will give you a quick example from my experience with this type of dynamic.

In the computer software field, and IT in general, once you have complete your job the job is over. There is no need to stay at the job. IT projects have a huge ramp up peak out on deployment then fall back down to maintenance level. The highest profit occurs between the point of sale and the peak. The backside becomes an expense eventually because the project life cycle ends. Why is this example relevant? Because in order to continue to make profits from software or IT, new software or ideas compete with the old.

This is what will happen in physical security. As soon as some company loses a bid, or is in danger of bankruptcy or gets beat out by a better idea or cheaper product, that company must turn its focus on creating a better product. Well at what point can company A stop a bullet better than company B? Well when company comes up with a better way to stop a bullet, company B has to find better bullets AND STOP that bullet. So company B goes from being a physical defense company to being a physical offense company so that they can create a product that is "better" at stopping bullets than company A.

And round and round we go. Always creating "better" physical defense to defeat the yet unrealized offense that is just over the horizon being developed by competitors. That is all fine in good in every other market, but when you have this type of dynamic occurring in a physical defense market, you end up with far less security, and far more products designed to defeat that security.

You end up with people still running windows 98 on a dial up connection using a mouse cracker jacks stuck in the little ball on 300 pound monitors. Do these people deserve to have better computers? Would the world be a better place if they did?

I don't want 2 dozen companies making money off private defense. I don't want to hire someone to stand guard at my house 24/7. I suspect the vast majority of people will stay the same. So, how is this private defense market going to get off the ground? How would companies entering the market should it exist expand that market to increase profit?

No I don't think the free market solves every problem. I think that is a pretty naive way to look at security and personal defense. I don't need that service. Besides, what is stopping me from going ahead and hiring a body guard? Nothing. So in a way, what you are asking for already exist. Problem with that is the cost. If everyone had to hire a private body guard to protect themselves from Al Capone types, then that is not security.

Al Capone created what is called a protection racket. He realized that he could create a demand for protection service not unlike what you are talking about. This protection service performed two primary functions.

1.) Intimidate -> "customers"
2.) Eliminate competition -> "cops"

It worked because Capone had no fear of the law. It was always safer to accept a bribe than to enforce the law. It was always safer to pay tribute than to resist intimidation. This type of a response to gangsters is typical and has not changed from generation to generation. What does change is the level of complacency and apathy towards the mob. It has now reached a point where the mob has completely eliminated the competition by rising up to the top of the federal government.

People would sell alcohol on the streets if the mob allowed it.

So do you think that we can just go ahead an implement a solution? Do you think that this solution will be without violence? Do you think that the mob will just go ahead and allow us to enter the market for private security and compete? Take the next step, do you think the mob will just let us have our own court? Do you think the mob will ignore you paying a judge or jury to return the verdict that is in your best interest?

I don't think any of those things are possible. The mob is going to outgun you and out spend you. I also think that it is unrealistic to envision a world that is without the mob. In your words, the mob is a successful business that runs outside the law. SO, do you really want to live in a society that exists outside the law? If not, then how can you see a society functioning where security and personal defense operates successfully within the law? And what law for that matter prevents any one or group from picking up a superior weapons and restarting the cycle? Certainly not any economic law.

[tmosley]

and in the absence of government, what happens? many smaller governments arise. how does that happen?

That happens when force is monopolized. When the larger government fell apart, gangs seized the guns and took it upon themselves to become mini-governments.

If Somalia had always maintained a right to bear arms, it would look a lot better than it does today, with or without a centralized government.

The world abhors a power vacuum, this is true, but rather than filling it with one single monstrosity, it is better to fill it with the power of numerous individuals who, being armed, can protect themselves against all enemies foreign and domestic, and being allowed to pursue their own rational self interests without interference (up to the point where they intrude on another's rights).

Further, one wonders if life in Somalia is really that bad. I haven't really seen any information on what life is like in modern Somalia. Not since we tried to invade. I have heard about their steps to privatize the oceans (ie pirates), which are being viciously resisted by the socialist governments of the world, but that's about it.

[Peace&Freedom]

A unified and willing people can make an anarchistic country work. Otherwise, a minimal state is best. The biblical example is ancient Israel, which functioned for centuries as a kind of theocratic anarchy (no government, just rule by prophets, whose legitimacy was established not by elections, but by the accuracy of their predictions) as described in I Samuel. Even there, the people came down with envy and demanded a government like all their neighbors, complete with a king.

Somalia seems to be made of several seriously different factions at this time, meaning the better bet would have been to have let them form a decentralized minimalist state that reflected the self-determination of the whole people. The West apparently wanted a successful government there (as elsewhere) ONLY if it could be co-opted and controlled by the West. That's why the Ethiopians were brought in to disrupt it---to break up freedom before it got out of control! The total global state cannot tolerate non-conforming outsider nations, be they anarchistic or minimalist in nature.

[andrewh817]

This may be an example of how anarchy exists, but I don't think its an example of the type of anarchy that I have learned to accept as a sophisticated and evolved form of self-government that balances individual sovereignty with voluntary cooperative organization based on freedom.

In other words, it wasn't an intellectual revolution in Somalia, but a violent one.

[johngr]

You know (at least honest libertarians do) perfectly well that the United States relatively superior living standards can't be attributed to the existence of state monopolies and central planning. The opposite is true with Somalia, they would only be much worse off with a government (easily proven by looking at the history of the country only a short while ago when they had a government).

The mean IQ of the citizens of any nation is positively correlated to its wealth and living standards.