Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: libertarian/ancap solution/thoughts to the "Coltan" & "Slave Labor" issue?

  1. #1

    Question libertarian/ancap solution/thoughts to the "Coltan" & "Slave Labor" issue?

    Having trouble locating much discussion on the issue.




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Here's what I think as I watch it...

    8 min in...
    A group of statists used their state power to attempt the genocide of an entire people, and killed 800,000 total.
    Another group of statists didn't like that and took control of the state and kicked out the first group of statists.
    So that group of statists is now in control of another portion of land that some third group of statists controls.
    They're forcing people who used to be ruled by the third group of statists to do slave labor for the first group of statists.

    So after 8 minutes, I'm already at the point where I can recognize that there is no freedom in any of these situations. The slave labor (if it exists, just got to 8:40 which makes me believe it doesn't, really) is really only a tiny part of this mess.

    Statist group #2 is "taxing" people coming into their territory with coltan.... extorting people. I don't understand how that's different from any other state. They point out it's not allowed... well it ain't allowed for cops to put people through nickel rides in Baltimore, either, and it doesn't stop $#@!. Statists gonna state.

    10:15, the coltan is used as currency. Interesting.
    10:19, some good ol' fashioned xenophobia. It's the furrner's fault, dang it! Rednecks exist everywhere in the world, even Africa.

    11:40, we get to the "slave labor" part, I think, which is that the mine is the only way to earn a living. Insert your favorite standard anti-state argument: I like the one where it's better than not having any job at all.

    11:55, we're supposed to feel bad that kids are working. Boo hoo. I thought it was pretty well documented that the only reason child labor laws, unions, and public schools really exist in the USA is to keep wage-undercutting kids out of the workforce... and not because there is some moral problem with it.

    12:00.... Jeebus, look at the way these poor slobs are working. You know why those guys aren't wearing shoes or eye protection? Or why they aren't driving dump trucks of this stuff into a town with paved roads and good medicine? It's because of the war, geniuses, not because the west wants the minerals. And what is the war about? It's about who gets to have the monopoly on violence. If they figured out a way to get rid of both groups, and not let any others in, then the Congo would experience about a 1000% increase in standard of living in the first year.
    Not knowing the best way to achieve statelessness doesn't mean the SOL increase wouldn't happen.
    And not knowing the best way to achieve statelessness is not an argument against it.

    12:20... Anatole, the "village headman". Who is suspiciously the only guy on camera wearing clean clothes. Are we going to get his whole story?

    13:00... MONEY SHOT, the militia model. They come at night for the goats, but they don't come for the coltan anymore.

    17:00... whose picture is that on the wall? Who is he glorifying?

    17:45... ok, still no mention of slave labor. Seems to me like the locals know what's buttering their bread, some of them have figured out the militia system, and it sounds like if they had a bit more time and treasure they could transform that into a way to conclusively deal with the genocidal $#@!s stealing their goats.

    18:15... one of the leading critics of the coltan trade is a liberation theologian. Veeeeeeeeeery interesting.

    19:15... liberation theology clown giving us another big dose of xenophobia. It's not the genocidal $#@!s who moved in who are the problem... nope, it's the furrnurs' fault!

    20:00... the liberation theologian does not disappoint. He asserts basically that black folk aren't capable of handling their own problems, that they need help developing their economy, but at the same time calls anyone who wants to bargain for this help greedy. To his credit, he says that the west should help end the war... but again, if the war isn't ending on its own, it's only because not everyone in the Congo thinks it should end. The ants aren't overcoming the grasshoppers, and there's a reason why... and he's either not telling us or doesn't know.

    20:40.... wow, that is some crystal-clear transparent transition into the rape victims of the Hutus. Wonder which side the documentarians are on?
    Ok, so now we finally get to the slavery part: sex slavery. This is some heart-wrenching stuff, but isn't it kind of contradicted by everything the documentary has shown about the rebels up to this point?
    If they're actively enslaving able-bodied men in the coltan mines, with no previous baggage building up to it, then how the hell were a couple men allowed to drive an expensive car into their territory with a bunch of expensive A/V equipment and then just drive out, after they actively pissed off some of the people in charge?
    Why didn't they take their stuff and enslave them?

    22:45... pouring it on with how bad the rebels are, but I mean, seriously, can anything top the systematic genocide of 800,000 people? We know who you're dealing with. And we also know that there is some reason why you're NOT dealing with them.

    24:30... liberation theology guy definitely pinning this on you and me for having cellphones. Bull$#@!, genius. You live there, and everyone who is in your congregation lives there, and I don't see any of you out there with AK-47s taking care of this.
    Beyond that, I don't see you contacting anyone with AK-47s and a lot of interest in coltan to come clean it up for you, either. I assume that you're as brainwashed as the rest of us and believe that a state has to go clean them out... No, if anything this video already showed that all you need is some untrained dipshits who can march around a village with a rifle to stop the coltan getting stolen, so imagine what you could do if you actually intentionally organized some people to take care of this, and stopped begging nanny government for help.

    25:00.... showing us all the cottage businesses that are bringing genuine employment to the area, and claiming it's a bad thing... I mean, it's not even a challenge to point out the problems with that.

    26:00.... LOLOLOLOLOL
    I LOVE the fact that the guy laughing on the left is supposed to make it look like these guys are morally dubious sheissters, but he's obviously giggling and thinking "you stupid white people, how the hell do you make a living, if it's not by buying and selling?"
    I especially like how he starts laughing hardest at the question who sets the prices?
    I just wish they had rephrased their answer only very slightly to say "THE MARKET DOES".

    I'm gonna have to pick this up later, but half way into it, I can see that the documentary makers had no choice but to let slip that there's more going on there than they are letting on.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  4. #3
    27:00... we find out that North Kivu is "wracked by rebellion". Not "infested with genocidal $#@!s"... I'm not sure how people say this stuff with a straight face. The narrator unequivocally states that above the rapes, the murders, the beating kid's heads open, the genocide, more consequential than all of that, is the rebellion. That, according to these filmmakers, is the thing these monsters should be remembered for.

    You know what? We don't really even have to go any farther than that: this encapsulates in its entirety the anti-state argument.
    Anarchists are the only people who can think clearly on these issues. Everyone else has a mind which is poisoned by this notion that the single worst thing any person can do is defy the state.
    That's the main answer to your question, Reason. That's the stateless solution. Eliminate the idea that the state is god, and people begin to see the things these people are doing for what they are: crimes against people.

    I'm gonna go out on a limb and posit that the reason why Liberation Theology guy can't shut up about foreigners is because his mind is similarly poisoned.
    The reason these filmmakers can't shut up about western states coming in and doing something about it is because their minds are poisoned.

    Extract that poison from your mind, and you instantly see that what these people have done is a crime.
    Extract that poison from your mind, and you eventually see that the bodies of those murdered cry out for justice.
    Extract that poison from your mind, and you see that as long as most people continue to harbor that poison, justice is impossible.
    Extract that poison from 51% of the minds in your society, and then not only does justice become possible, but for the first time, it becomes ​the goal.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  5. #4
    I'm gonna have to watch the part with General Jim Jones a couple times, I think....
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  6. #5
    Haven't watched the video yet, and I'm not familiar with the "blood coltan" trade in particular, but I'll assume it's more or less the same as the "blood diamond" issue, and comment accordingly:

    1. The problem is not the mineral, and the solution is not to embargo its export in an attempt to deny funds to the belligerents. That is disturbingly naive - not only because it is probably impossible to implement, but because it would do no good even if it could be implemented. If they didn't have coltan to sell, it'd be something else. If they had nothing to sell, they'd be fighting with sticks and stones. The coltan trade is beside the point.

    2. So what is the problem? The problem is that there is no functioning state in that territory. Statelessness is civil war; the state is the peace of the victor. None of the warring factions has yet won in the DRC, hence the war continues. Only when someone wins will there be peace, which is the first precondition to a civilized society.

    3. And the solution? Make peace. There are two options: (1) An outside force intervenes to establish peace (e.g. the US army invades and creates peace at the point of a sword). This is in fact possible, our recent nation-building experiences notwithstanding. If you occupy a country long enough, you can mold it into a shape which will stick when you leave. Perhaps it would take 50 years, 100 years, 300 years, who knows. Of course, one may doubt whether this is worth doing (to put it mildly). (2) Leave them alone, and wait for someone to win. Someone eventually will win or, at least, they will realize that no one can dominate the whole country and agree to divide it up. This will probably be bloodier but also quicker. The worst possible "solution" would be for foreign powers to intervene just enough to prevent a definitive victory for one side or another, and thus prolong the war - which is more or less what's been happening in these parts of Africa for decades (some argue, intentionally).
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-16-2015 at 04:35 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  7. #6
    2. So what is the problem? The problem is that there is no functioning state in that territory.
    So you need government to solve it. OK. Aside from boycott threats, there is no free market incentive for a company to go away from using slave labor. They are about profits and the highest profits come from the lowest costs and labor is the biggest cost for anything. Slave labor is the cheapest labor.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So you need government to solve it. OK. Aside from boycott threats, there is no free market incentive for a company to go away from using slave labor. They are about profits and the highest profits come from the lowest costs and labor is the biggest cost for anything. Slave labor is the cheapest labor.
    Hmm, don't know what you're talking about. As I said, I haven't watched the video yet.

    I was just commenting on the general chaos, civil war, violence, etc in the DRC.

    I'll get back to you once I've watched the video.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  9. #8
    Okay, watched the video. As expected, it's identical to the "blood diamond" issue....

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So you need government to solve it. OK. Aside from boycott threats, there is no free market incentive for a company to go away from using slave labor. They are about profits and the highest profits come from the lowest costs and labor is the biggest cost for anything. Slave labor is the cheapest labor.
    You're missing the point Zippy.

    There are valuable mineral resources all over the world.

    Why is there not civil war raging in every country?

    Why are minerals in other countries not extracted by slave labor?

    Read my first post again.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So you need government to solve it. OK. Aside from boycott threats, there is no free market incentive for a company to go away from using slave labor. They are about profits and the highest profits come from the lowest costs and labor is the biggest cost for anything. Slave labor is the cheapest labor.
    Boycotting is a very effective tool to get a company to change its policies, can't tell if your were trying to minimize that or not. And as great as it is that free markets do provide a possible solution, why would you expect free markets to solve a problem that doesn't have to do with free markets? Free markets don't solve rape or murder or theft. It is by no means a hard and fast rule, but I think it is sensible that force is generally the best solution for force. And force can be applied by anyone, not just governments.

  12. #10
    I value modern and future technology over the quality of life of the Congolese. If there's a way to change this without affecting productivity, fine. If not, I can't be brought to care all that much.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    I value modern and future technology over the quality of life of the Congolese.
    Embargoing DRC Coltan wouldn't even improve the Congolese quality of life.

    The underlying logic of an embargo is insane - "the rebels are siphoning off some of the economic output of the Congo, so let's reduce it economic output."

    This won't end the war (it will just make the belligerents fight with simpler weapons, spears if need be), while simultaneously impoverishing the civilian population.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    So what is the problem? The problem is that there is no functioning state in that territory.
    The problem is that there are at least two functioning states in that territory, and General Jim Jones could be counted as a third, and I haven't even finished the video yet - though everyone else's apparent refusal to watch it is making me rethink my "get some work done this afternoon" plan so I can finish it up. There may be yet other functioning states.

    The only thing you need to have a state is one group of people claiming the monopoly on causing suffering in other people. There are two entities that have geographically distinct boundaries - this is shown in the first 10 minutes as the documentarians move from one geographical area to another.

    Each of those states is doing what states do. The documentarians are clearly favoring the Congo's "official" state over the state created by the exiled Hutus. That does not change the fact that the Congo's "official" state is just as guilty of pushing people around and making their lives miserable.

    You could probably make the argument that the "official" state is a failed state because it has not yet ejected the "rebels". But the only failure, from the statist point of view, is that the "official" state is failing to eject competing claims to its monopoly.

    Statelessness is civil war; the state is the peace of the victor.
    Except in all those cases where statelessness resulted in peace that hasn't really been possible under rule by a state.

    None of the warring factions has yet won in the DRC, hence the war continues. Only when someone wins will there be peace, which is the first precondition to a civilized society.
    Dark age Ireland respected the property rights of women, and internal wars consisted of cattle raids and small brawls where 20 people might die.
    20th century total states succeeded in killing at least 100 million of their own citizens.
    In short, history loudly denounces your claim.

    And the solution? Make peace. There are two options:
    How about the option of passing out firearms to everybody?
    I'm not going to do all the math but I'd bet the rent that one AK-47 and two full mags per adult male age 18-50 is going to cost at most quarter of what a foreign intervention would cost, and it would solve every single issue they're having within two weeks.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  15. #13
    30:04... so General Jim Jones claims a god revealed to his army that they need to do something... and that General Jim Jones is a priest and has been for several years. What I didn't catch the first time around is that he is a seventeenth day adventist. I'm not sure what he said in French, and I'm not sure at this point the documentarians know what they're talking about either, but I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as a seventeenth day adventist, outside of that Congo jungle mountain compound, anyway.

    30:35... they have people who are with "Rebels for Christ" and who pray with them, and who are Muslims.
    Well, that just stands to reason that some unidentifiable splinter offshoot of a splinter offshoot of of a splinter offshoot of Christianity would attract splinter offshoots of splinter offshoots of splinter offshoots of Islam....

    31:55... So General Jim Jones has a woman working for him, and we're supposed to be impressed that she gave up being a Benedictine nun to go fight. I have been calling him General Jim Jones for a reason - it's because you don't need to get beyond scratching the surface of the People's Temple to find out that it was a political movement which was cloaked in religious terms.
    So what they've done in this part of the show is given me the solid impression that the only people who are truly motivated to do something about the political situation in Congo are types who have intentionally blurred the line between religion and state, for the purpose of propping themselves up as the only valid state.
    There's really no other way to get from historical Christianity to a point where you're praying together with Muslims.

    32:34... the documentarians are really going off the rails at this point. "Like a good war leader, General Kunda (sp?) likes to show mercy to his prisoners." Good according to whom? More to the point, why is it mercy that you have captured a bunch of kids but not executed them? What did they do? Were they actually working for Rwandan Hutus in the Congo, or did you just find these kids and take them prisoner? What are you doing with them while they're prisoner? All Jim Jones says is that they eat with them and they keep them prisoner. Where? Chained together busting rocks?
    Or prisoners in your bunk, perhaps? That's certainly in line with the MO of political rabble-rousers who pretend to be religious.

    33:20.... cut to scary music as we discuss his buddy the president of Rwanda. Oh man, this music is so scary... he must be evil! Documentarians claim he openly supports Kunda, but then quote him as saying only that he has some legitimate grievances. And here I thought that sort of blatant misquoting was a uniquely American phenomenon.

    34:00.... General Jim Jones unequivocally denies having anything to do with mines, and he gives what I consider a damned good reason: because if his men had anything to do at all with the mines, then the world would see his fight as being about the mines. Further, he claims that all he needs to do is get his resources is ask for them.
    So not only does he have a great alibi for not being in the coltan trade, but he also corroborates what I wrote earlier: the war isn't stopping because there are enough people who think it should not be stopped. It also supports what r3volution was saying above, that the war is going to continue, mines or no mines.
    So at this point, over halfway through, we've established that the mines have nothing to do with the war, and more to the point, the only overt mention of slave labor so far is from a group of rape victims, which claim, as much as it pains me to say it, has not been verified, and is flat out contradicted by other parts of the video.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
    So what is the problem? The problem is that there is no functioning state in that territory.
    The problem is that there are at least two functioning states in that territory, and General Jim Jones could be counted as a third, and I haven't even finished the video yet - though everyone else's apparent refusal to watch it is making me rethink my "get some work done this afternoon" plan so I can finish it up. There may be yet other functioning states.
    What is the state? It is a group which not only claims but actually has a territorial monopoly on violence.

    I can claim a monopoly on violence in the territory of the US, doesn't make me the king - does it? The claim has to be enforceable.

    On the other hand, no state has ever had a true, 100% monopoly on the use of violence in its territory - there are always at least some unauthorized acts of violence.

    Therefore, "stateness" is not a crisp, clean either/or - it exists on a spectrum.

    [SINO]*me* ----*organized crime* ----*rebels*----*failed state fighting rebels*----state w/out rebels----*state w/out rebels and little crime*[Strong State]

    Organized crime is more state-like than me, rebels are more state-like than organized crime, a failed state fighting rebels is more state-like than the rebels its fighting, a state without any challenge from rebels is more state-like than a state challenged by rebels, and state which faces no rebels and has also suppressed most ordinary crime is most state-like of all.

    Neither the officially recognized state of he DRC nor any of the rebel groups are very far to the right on this spectrum.

    None of them are very state-like.

    None of them have a high degree of control in the territories they are claiming to control, which is another way of saying that they're fighting over control of the same territory.

    To end the violence, it is necessary (as I said initially) for either (a) one of the belligerents (be it the officially recognized DRC state or one of the rebel groups) to establish undisputed control over the entire country, or (b) for them to agree to divide the country into several parts, with each having undisputed control over their respective part.

    You could probably make the argument that the "official" state is a failed state because it has not yet ejected the "rebels".
    Clearly

    But the only failure, from the statist point of view, is that the "official" state is failing to eject competing claims to its monopoly.
    Right, that is the failure. That is what makes the official DRC state a failed state, a weak state, a state in name only, etc - and that is why there is so much violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
    Statelessness is civil war; the state is the peace of the victor.
    Except in all those cases where statelessness resulted in peace that hasn't really been possible under rule by a state.
    There have been no such cases in world history: unless you mean prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies.

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
    None of the warring factions has yet won in the DRC, hence the war continues. Only when someone wins will there be peace, which is the first precondition to a civilized society.
    Dark age Ireland respected the property rights of women, and internal wars consisted of cattle raids and small brawls where 20 people might die.
    Right, in societies with low economic output, it is physically impossible to conduct war on a large scale.

    What's your point?

    20th century total states succeeded in killing at least 100 million of their own citizens.
    Yes, that's true.

    What's your point?

    In short, history loudly denounces your claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
    And the solution? Make peace. There are two options:
    How about the option of passing out firearms to everybody?
    I'm not going to do all the math but I'd bet the rent that one AK-47 and two full mags per adult male age 18-50 is going to cost at most quarter of what a foreign intervention would cost, and it would solve every single issue they're having within two weeks.
    How would providing arms to all sides end the war?

    That does not change the balance of power, does not give any one side the advantage it needs to win and end the war.

    But arming just one side (be it the DRC government or one of the rebel groups) would indeed be an alternative to direct military intervention.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-18-2015 at 01:49 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    To end the violence, it is necessary (as I said initially) for either (a) one of the belligerents (be it the officially recognized DRC state or one of the rebel groups) to establish undisputed control over the entire country, or (b) for them to agree to divide the country into several parts, with each having undisputed control over their respective part.
    There is nothing about either option that will end the violence and I've already pointed that out, but your mind is poisoned by statism and you literally can't see that.
    One side is responsible for a genuine, real-article genocide. They murdered 800,000 people. That's more dead than both sides of the 1861-65 war in the US, which was the bloodiest conflict in our history.
    And they were able to do that precisely because they controlled the state. And why do you think they are fighting control of the state in the Congo? So they can have a vote and get tax breaks? If you think it's about anything other than wresting back enough control to start up the killings again, just let me know, so I can just back out of the room slowly. It sure as $#@! isn't about coltan.

    Your option a is not an option because the very real possibility exists of the Hutus gaining control of the entire area and starting up the killings again, and option b doesn't solve anything because the Hutus are not driven by the desire to form a lasting state. They unfortunately see the state for exactly what it is - the thing which empowers you to kill without reprisal. It is a tool for them, not an end.

    Right, that is the failure. That is what makes the official DRC state a failed state, a weak state, a state in name only, etc - and that is why there is so much violence.
    There is so much violence because nobody will recognize the concept portrayed right at the 13 minute mark and extrapolate it out into a working model.
    Three guys patrolling a village with rifles made the rebels scale back their raids to stealing cattle in the night, where they were stealing everything before, in the open.
    Put an AK in the hands of every adult male, and you have a proper militia. With a proper militia, they stop coming at all.

    If it was possible for me to donate to a charity which equips villagers with AK's and teaches them basic marksmanship and perhaps also some emergency preparedness and rules of engagement, I'd do it in a second.
    Unfortunately, between here and there, there are a dozen states and a dozen rape cages waiting for people executing that idea, and salivating at the notion of intercepting them.
    Those are all dominant states "maintaining peace" within their geographical area, they're actually stopping people from doing the one thing that will clean up the DRC, and yes, they are not only guilty of actual acts of violence, they are even more guilty of preventing real solutions to violence.

    There have been no such cases in world history: unless you mean prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies.
    Or unless you go all "no true Scotsman" with this....

    Right, in societies with low economic output, it is physically impossible to conduct war on a large scale.
    What's your point?
    Oh, right, I momentarily forgot, all the examples I can name from history don't count, because, you know, they're no true Scotsman.
    You said that the state is necessary to achieve peace.
    I offered you an example where that was patently false.
    But it doesn't count, because people weren't walking around with cellphones and vaccines and modern conveniences.
    Sorry, I forgot how statists argue, and how that makes total sense with a poisoned mind.

    We'll just skip the fact that we're discussing a video about an area where there is low economic output and there's still a war.


    Someone else want to pick this up? Seven years of the same ignored, unrefuted points gets old. But I suppose we need to remember it's not about the opponent, it's about the readers.......
    Last edited by fisharmor; 05-18-2015 at 08:03 PM.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    There is nothing about either option that will end the violence and I've already pointed that out, but your mind is poisoned by statism and you literally can't see that.
    Your explanation of the massive violence in the DRC is that there is a state: i.e. "the state exists --> massive violence."

    But there's a state in France, Japan, and the US - for instance. Why isn't there massive violence in those places?

    Obviously, your theory is false. The existence of the state is not a sufficient condition for a DRC-like situation to exist.

    Whereas my theory ("no state/weak state --> massive violence") can explain the facts.

    DRC = weak state(s) = massive violence
    France, US, Japan = strong state = no massive violence

    One side is responsible for a genuine, real-article genocide. They murdered 800,000 people. That's more dead than both sides of the 1861-65 war in the US, which was the bloodiest conflict in our history. And they were able to do that precisely because they controlled the state. And why do you think they are fighting control of the state in the Congo?
    Right, they are fighting over who gets to control the state in that territory.

    Hence the problem. Only when one of them wins, and becomes the undisputed master of that territory, will that struggle end.

    So they can have a vote and get tax breaks? If you think it's about anything other than wresting back enough control to start up the killings again, just let me know, so I can just back out of the room slowly. It sure as $#@! isn't about coltan.
    If the winning party is genocidal wrt the losers, then yes, that's what will happen.

    But now we're talking about different things.

    I was talking about the current civil war, why that exists and how it can end.

    You're now talking about what the new state, whenever it eventually consolidates, will do.

    My guess is, it will be quite brutal - whether genocidal or not. Primitive insecure states tend to be brutal, out of the necessity of self-preservation.

    Unfortunately, short of outside intervention, there is no way to avoid this necessary step in the long march toward civilization.

    Just wait a while, eventually the state will become more secure and sheath the iron first. This is what has happened in the West and all other civilized countries.

    There is so much violence because nobody will recognize the concept portrayed right at the 13 minute mark and extrapolate it out into a working model.
    Three guys patrolling a village with rifles made the rebels scale back their raids to stealing cattle in the night, where they were stealing everything before, in the open.
    Put an AK in the hands of every adult male, and you have a proper militia. With a proper militia, they stop coming at all.
    Only if you assume that everyone, with their AK, will agree on what is to be done.

    But, if everyone in the DRC agreed on what is to be done, there would be no violence in the first place.

    So...

    Those are all dominant states "maintaining peace" within their geographical area, they're actually stopping people from doing the one thing that will clean up the DRC, and yes, they are not only guilty of actual acts of violence, they are even more guilty of preventing real solutions to violence.
    I'm starting to wonder what you're arguing. Do you somehow think I'm defending the actions of the barbarians?

    Or unless you go all "no true Scotsman" with this....
    I'll take that to mean you cannot cite an historical example of an anarcho-capitalist society.

    Oh, right, I momentarily forgot, all the examples I can name from history don't count, because, you know, they're no true Scotsman.
    What examples?

    You said that the state is necessary to achieve peace.
    I offered you an example where that was patently false.
    But it doesn't count, because people weren't walking around with cellphones and vaccines and modern conveniences.
    No, you told me that war was small-scale in ancient Ireland (to which I responded, "of course, it was poor and sparely populated")

    "War was small-scale in ancient Ireland" --> "Ancient Ireland was a peaceful anarchic society" = non sequitur

    I know this is a an example frequently trotted out, but the fact is there's no evidence that ancient Ireland was anarchic. We simply don't know enough about that society. Medieval Iceland, on the other hand, which is another popularly cited example, we do know for sure was not an anarchic society. It had a quite decentralized state, but a state nonetheless - a territorial monopoly on the use of violence.

    https://newlibertyreview.wordpress.c...alist-society/

    unrefuted points
    Such as?
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2015, 12:16 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-31-2013, 03:30 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-04-2012, 12:30 PM
  4. Libertarian solution to "Blind Side" type poverty
    By Fr3shjive in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-12-2010, 04:55 AM
  5. SPLIT: libertarian/ancap discussion from "In Case I Get Banned"
    By forsmant in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-02-2009, 08:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •