http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
The paper is 33 pages long.
I just love intellectuals.
Quote
Indeed, thus far in the stateless period, the two greatest disruptions of relative stability
and renewed social conflict have occurred precisely in the two times that a formal government
was attempted?first with the TNF and more recently with the TFG. In both cases the specter of
government disturbed the delicate equilibrium of power that exists between competing factions,
and led to increased violence and deaths due to armed conflict (Menkhaus 2004).
I'd like to see the numbers with these periods removed.
Quote
At the moment at least, it seems that in upsetting this delicate balance of power the attempted
reestablishment of government in Somalia is likely to lead to more conflict and obstacles to
progress rather than less. This would have the undesirable effect of reversing the strides toward
increased development Somalia has achieved
Good article. I read the whole thing.
All who want to go to somalia... have fun.
Quote from: Dreepa on March 04, 2006, 06:33 PM NHFT
All who want to somalia... have fun.
Somalia as a verb!
In summary, the article makes a good argument that anarchy is better than bad government. It doesn't go as far as saying anarchy is better than a good, "limited" government.
I think Somalia demonstrates that even in the absence of an official government, power structures will exist.
Anarchy is a great idea. But the problem is, government (even de facto government) is going to exist. It fills a vacuum.
Kevin
Quote from: rhelwig on March 04, 2006, 06:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: Dreepa on March 04, 2006, 06:33 PM NHFT
All who want to somalia... have fun.
Somalia as a verb!
In summary, the article makes a good argument that anarchy is better than bad government. It doesn't go as far as saying anarchy is better than a good, "limited" government.
Of course to say whether or not Anarchy is better the good "Limited" government is neither true nore false. In Formal Logic this is known as the "null space" as there is no such thing as a good "limited" government. Government by it's very nature is not limited.
Tracy
Quote from: KBCraig on March 04, 2006, 10:51 PM NHFT
I think Somalia demonstrates that even in the absence of an official government, power structures will exist.
Anarchy is a great idea. But the problem is, government (even de facto government) is going to exist. It fills a vacuum.
Kevin
Of course the power structures in Somalia are largely based on volentary arangement and whether they're not, they're in competition with other power structures which tends to keep them in check -- onlike a government power structure which has a legal monopoly on such things. That was the whole point of the constitution and seperation of powers, to have competion between the different branches of government and different levels of government (Citi vs state vs federal) Anarchy, is simply a more pure form of this concept.
See Roderick's Anarchism as Constitutionalism: A Reply to Bidinotto,
Parts One http://praxeology.net/unblog12-03.htm#02 ,
Two http://praxeology.net/unblog12-03.htm#14 , and
Three http://praxeology.net/unblog02-04.htm#14
Tracy
Quote from: tracysaboe on March 05, 2006, 12:29 AM NHFT
Of course the power structures in Somalia are largely based on volentary arangement
When bullets are flying, it's a safe bet that someone is unhappy with something that they didn't volunteer for.
Peace exists either voluntarily or through superior force. They're still applying force on force in Somalia, so it's not voluntary, nor is it peaceful.
Kevin
Natural Order insists something or someone is dominant, always! true pacifist societies shall never exist. only in artificial environments will it maintain a level coexistence and if only protected by force.
Small clan or tribal governments exist in many instances throughout the world. Humans are by nature a 'social' creature that creates them. Only solitary creatures exhibit any true anarchy.
Quote from: John Edward MercierSmall clan or tribal governments exist in many instances throughout the world. Humans are by nature a 'social' creature that creates them.
Every state, no matter how small, is fundamentally an antisocial organization. Civilized society is predicated on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid; the State thrives on plunder and pillage.
Smaller than clans would be families, then the parent-child relationship.
I heard it is nice in the Phillippines.
Kola
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on January 25, 2008, 06:12 PM NHFT
Small clan or tribal governments exist in many instances throughout the world. Humans are by nature a 'social' creature that creates them. Only solitary creatures exhibit any true anarchy.
[/quote
solitary creatures are independant.
children are raised to be dependant or independant, both are learned behavior. certain personalities may lean one way or the other...naturally
Quote from: Ron Helwig on March 04, 2006, 05:25 PM NHFT
Quote
Indeed, thus far in the stateless period, the two greatest disruptions of relative stability
and renewed social conflict have occurred precisely in the two times that a formal government
was attempted?first with the TNF and more recently with the TFG. In both cases the specter of
government disturbed the delicate equilibrium of power that exists between competing factions,
and led to increased violence and deaths due to armed conflict (Menkhaus 2004).
I'd like to see the numbers with these periods removed.
Quote
At the moment at least, it seems that in upsetting this delicate balance of power the attempted
reestablishment of government in Somalia is likely to lead to more conflict and obstacles to
progress rather than less. This would have the undesirable effect of reversing the strides toward
increased development Somalia has achieved
Good article. I read the whole thing.
I have heard this from somewhere else as well. The promise of a gov't sends the various factions into a frenzy to ensure that they control the new gov't. Unfortunately, gov't likes to establish puppets in other areas, and so the 'promise' of gov'ts is unlikely to cease in somalia any time soon. >:(
Quote from: KBCraig on March 04, 2006, 10:51 PM NHFT
I think Somalia demonstrates that even in the absence of an official government, power structures will exist.
Anarchy is a great idea. But the problem is, government (even de facto government) is going to exist. It fills a vacuum.
Kevin
Somalia is actually an example of a society that has
regressed to the primitive, barbaric roots of the Authoritarian Model of Government. It is the
worst possible example one could point to, if one wishes to demonstrate
true, peaceful anarchy voluntaryism. Instead of a having a widely recognized central government, as other nation-states do, the power of it's rulers is fractionalized, resulting in volatile social conditions. The fact remains that
they still operate within the paradigm of the AMOG.
A voluntaryist civilization can arise
only through a widespread, individual-by-individual paradigm shift, in which the inherent sovereignty of the individual becomes universally recognized and honored.
Until this widespread paradigm shift occurs, the Authoritarian Model of Government will indeed fill any vacuum,
at least at the basic, barbaric level -- as in Somalia.
The good news is that it is well within the power of those of us who have already made this paradigm shift, to transmit it to others on the massive, worldwide scale necessary. :)
Quote from: KBCraig on March 04, 2006, 10:51 PM NHFT
I think Somalia demonstrates that even in the absence of an official government, power structures will exist.
Anarchy is a great idea. But the problem is, government (even de facto government) is going to exist. It fills a vacuum.
Some people feel they can only make themselves secure by engaging in aggression against others. This is one reason we need to slowly transition away from the State, so people have time to learn that "preëmptive" self-defense is not a solution to insecurity. If you just rip the State out from under people, many will panic and do anything to survive, including engage in aggression to protect themselves.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145This is one reason we need to slowly transition away from the State, so people have time to learn that "preëmptive" self-defense is not a solution to insecurity.
That people are dependent on a criminal enterprise is no argument for making a "[slow] transition" away from it. People are remarkably adaptable and quick to learn when they have to be; coddling and infantilization only exarcerbate dependency.
He's suggesting that their 'adaptation' would be violence.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on January 28, 2008, 03:57 PM NHFT
Some people feel they can only make themselves secure by engaging in aggression against others. This is one reason we need to slowly transition away from the State, so people have time to learn that "preëmptive" self-defense is not a solution to insecurity. If you just rip the State out from under people, many will panic and do anything to survive, including engage in aggression to protect themselves.
No one here would advocate "ripping the 'State' out from under people", at least to my knowledge.
The speed at which this transition occurs is immaterial to its success. The sooner it occurs, however, the sooner the harmful effects of the AMOG upon the individual will cease.
People who feel they can only make themselves secure by engaging in aggression, are operating squarely within the obsolete paradigm that facilitates the very existence of the AMOG. This is why a universal paradigm shift must occur, at the individual level.
A mass paradigm shift is the only passageway to a voluntaryist civilization. Any efforts to temporarily shrink the AMOG to reduce short-term harm are unfortunately only wasted energy, regardless of the well-meaning intent behind such efforts. Shrinking the power of the 'State' increases the comfort level of the individual
within the AMOG, engendering indifference and perpetuating the AMOG.
Just as mass
indifference facilitates stagnation, mass
disenchantment facilitates a speedy transition.
A 'virally transmitted' paradigm shift is the only true solution to aggression, because aggression is actually supported
only by an obsolete paradigm that is based on a faulty premise. It simply cannot be effectively countered by more aggression, any more than one can overcome fire with fire.
Quote from: srqrebel on January 29, 2008, 11:21 AM NHFTNo one here would advocate "ripping the 'State' out from under people", at least to my knowledge.
The speed at which this transition occurs is immaterial to its success. The sooner it occurs, however, the sooner the harmful effects of the AMOG on the individual will cease.
People who feel they can only make themselves secure by engaging in aggression, are operating squarely within the obsolete paradigm that facilitates the very existence of the AMOG. This is why a universal paradigm shift must occur, at the individual level.
A mass paradigm shift is the only passageway to a voluntaryist civilization. Any efforts to temporarily shrink the AMOG to reduce short-term harm are unfortunately only wasted energy, regardless of the well-meaning intent behind such efforts. Shrinking the power of the 'State' increases the comfort level of the individual within the AMOG, engendering indifference and perpetuating the AMOG.
Mass indifference facilitates stagnation, perpetuating the AMOG.
Mass disenchantment facilitates a speedy transition.
A 'virally transmitted' paradigm shift is the only true solution to aggression, because aggression is actually supported only by an obsolete paradigm that is based on a faulty premise. It simply cannot be effectively countered by more aggression, any more than one can overcome fire with fire.
While speed is
technically immaterial to success, anything prior to the point at which the paradigm shifts would be a disaster.
Realistic examination of history puts that on the order of 200 years. I have no interest in detailing the methodology used in obtaining that number. Take it or leave it. But I think most rational anarchists would agree that anything shy of 20 years would be a near-certain disaster, as it is virtually inconceivable that we could change enough minds before that point, and that stretching as far as 2000 would not be all that unlikely.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on January 29, 2008, 11:25 AM NHFT
While speed is technically immaterial to success, anything prior to the point at which the paradigm shifts would be a disaster.
Realistic examination of history puts that on the order of 200 years. I have no interest in detailing the methodology used in obtaining that number. Take it or leave it. But I think most rational anarchists would agree that anything shy of 20 years would be a near-certain disaster, as it is virtually inconceivable that we could change enough minds before that point, and that stretching as far as 2000 would not be all that unlikely.
Joe
Could you please explain what you mean by "anything prior to the point at which the paradigm shifts would be a disaster", and why you think that "anything shy of 20 years would be a near-certain disaster"?
To my knowledge, there is nothing in human history, except perhaps the (little known) quantum leap from the bicameral mind to the conscious mind, that has any bearing on the phenomenon that I am trying to convey.
Quote from: srqrebel on January 29, 2008, 11:36 AM NHFTCould you please explain what you mean by "anything prior to the point at which the paradigm shifts would be a disaster", and why you think that "anything shy of 20 years would be a near-certain disaster"?
To my knowledge, there is nothing in human history, except perhaps the (little known) quantum leap from the bicameral mind to the conscious mind, that has any bearing on the phenomenon that I am trying to convey.
If WWIII (or somesuch) happens tomorrow and the government is destroyed/goes away/whatever, it will be replaced with something as bad or worse. Because the general public has been trained to believe in that system.
Only once there is impetus among the population to create something better could we view the end of the current regime as a good thing.
The kind of paradigm shift necessary to create an anarchic system of government will take time. It is exceedingly unlikely that such a change will occur in anything less than two decades, and most likely will take longer. So, if some nuts decided to nuke DC tomorrow and we were left with a power vacuum, it would be a negative thing for the cause of liberty, because Statists (not anarchists) would be creating the replacement government.
Once it does happen, it will happen relatively quickly. Not on the order of hours or anything silly like that, but quite rapidly, from a historical timescale.
Joe
Quote from: srqrebel on January 29, 2008, 11:24 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on January 28, 2008, 03:57 PM NHFT
Some people feel they can only make themselves secure by engaging in aggression against others. This is one reason we need to slowly transition away from the State, so people have time to learn that "preëmptive" self-defense is not a solution to insecurity. If you just rip the State out from under people, many will panic and do anything to survive, including engage in aggression to protect themselves.
No one here would advocate "ripping the 'State' out from under people", at least to my knowledge.
This is what happened in Somalia, though, and since some are claiming Somalia is a "successful anarchist state," that's why I felt the need to point it out.
Quote from: MaineShark on January 29, 2008, 12:09 PM NHFT
If WWIII (or somesuch) happens tomorrow and the government is destroyed/goes away/whatever, it will be replaced with something as bad or worse. Because the general public has been trained to believe in that system.
Only once there is impetus among the population to create something better could we view the end of the current regime as a good thing.
The kind of paradigm shift necessary to create an anarchic system of government will take time. It is exceedingly unlikely that such a change will occur in anything less than two decades, and most likely will take longer. So, if some nuts decided to nuke DC tomorrow and we were left with a power vacuum, it would be a negative thing for the cause of liberty, because Statists (not anarchists) would be creating the replacement government.
Once it does happen, it will happen relatively quickly. Not on the order of hours or anything silly like that, but quite rapidly, from a historical timescale.
Joe
I agree with all of this, except that I firmly believe that through careful engineering, it
can happen in as little as a couple of years (not saying that it necessarily will, though).
The speed at which the transition takes place hinges entirely upon how efficiently and effectively those who have already made the paradigm shift transmit it to those who have not. This is why it is so vitally important to understand and work in harmony with human nature -- for to be effective and efficient, one must
always work in harmony with the nature of one's medium, which in our case is the human organism.
My main focus has become the engineering of a fast transmitting viral model of the accurate paradigm. Once completed and engaged, the transition will be both peaceful and rapid.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on January 29, 2008, 12:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on January 29, 2008, 11:24 AM NHFT
No one here would advocate "ripping the 'State' out from under people", at least to my knowledge.
This is what happened in Somalia, though, and since some are claiming Somalia is a "successful anarchist state," that's why I felt the need to point it out.
Ah.. now I understand, and completely agree.
Thank you for the clarification :)
Quote from: srqrebel on January 29, 2008, 12:39 PM NHFTI agree with all of this, except that I firmly believe that through careful engineering, it can happen in as little as a couple of years (not saying that it necessarily will, though).
Indeed. In theory, it can. In practice, I think the odds are extraordinarily small of a successful change in only a couple years.
Quote from: srqrebel on January 29, 2008, 12:39 PM NHFTThe speed at which the transition takes place hinges entirely upon how efficiently and effectively those who have already made the paradigm shift transmit it to those who have not. This is why it is so vitally important to understand and work in harmony with human nature -- for to be effective and efficient, one must always work in harmony with the nature of one's medium, which in our case is the human organism.
Indeed. Which is one of my reasons for rejecting the utterly-artificial system called "pacifism." Human nature will reject it.
Joe
Would it then be survival for the fittest? 100% Natural.
Quote from: srqrebel on January 29, 2008, 11:24 AM NHFT
A mass paradigm shift is the only passageway to a voluntaryist civilization. Any efforts to temporarily shrink the AMOG to reduce short-term harm are unfortunately only wasted energy, regardless of the well-meaning intent behind such efforts. Shrinking the power of the 'State' increases the comfort level of the individual within the AMOG, engendering indifference and perpetuating the AMOG.
That's nonsense. There is a difference between anarchism and minarchism, and the anarchists will be against government no matter how small it is.
Quote from: srqrebel on January 29, 2008, 11:24 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on January 28, 2008, 03:57 PM NHFT
Some people feel they can only make themselves secure by engaging in aggression against others. This is one reason we need to slowly transition away from the State, so people have time to learn that "preëmptive" self-defense is not a solution to insecurity. If you just rip the State out from under people, many will panic and do anything to survive, including engage in aggression to protect themselves.
No one here would advocate "ripping the 'State' out from under people", at least to my knowledge.
I do.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 30, 2008, 10:46 AM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on January 29, 2008, 11:24 AM NHFT
No one here would advocate "ripping the 'State' out from under people", at least to my knowledge.
I do.
Then I stand corrected ;)
Quote from: watershed on January 29, 2008, 03:13 PM NHFT
Would it then be survival for the fittest? 100% Natural.
Generally yes. Humans are not at a base level inherently different than other species.
Quote from: MobileDigit on January 29, 2008, 07:09 PM NHFTQuote from: srqrebel on January 29, 2008, 11:24 AM NHFTA mass paradigm shift is the only passageway to a voluntaryist civilization. Any efforts to temporarily shrink the AMOG to reduce short-term harm are unfortunately only wasted energy, regardless of the well-meaning intent behind such efforts. Shrinking the power of the 'State' increases the comfort level of the individual within the AMOG, engendering indifference and perpetuating the AMOG.
That's nonsense. There is a difference between anarchism and minarchism, and the anarchists will be against government no matter how small it is.
I'm expecting that he means fewer will convert to anarchism, if they view the State as less of a threat.
Joe
I love it! you guys have discussions laden with terms and jargon when in actuality it can be termed very simply. In my own experiences and observations wether its working with others, spending time in nature alone, daydreaming, it seems as though human nature is that, of nature and our actions and motivations are the same as those in the animal kingdom. To me the movement toward liberty, anarchy, is the natural struggle to survive, and to most of us that means being independent...totally. When a young buck reaches adolescence...he wanders to make his own survival..often rattling antlers with dominant males...ie the people in government. Often too, a lesser male is shunned by a stronger buck and thus forced to fend for his survival and in both cases they wander alone or band together to find themselves a herd of their own.
18-25 yr old males(human) tend to lack confidence when with older males and try to impress
25-29 yr olds tend to think they have it figured out and openly resist older males but are often humbled by mature aggression, physical or verbal
30-35 yr olds begin to get it, they start to put the pieces together and work toward accomplishing goals ignoring the immature games of younger men and sort out the emotional tribulations of women
35-40 become established and sure
40-50 begin thoughts of legacy and perhaps educating others
50-65 over the hill
65- retire in Florida with SS, medicare ,union pensions, award money from law suits after falling and shattering hip, malpractice settlements and a steady flow of Viagra so that they wish that they were 30 again on top of the world
Quote from: MaineShark on January 30, 2008, 03:26 PM NHFT
Quote from: MobileDigit on January 29, 2008, 07:09 PM NHFT
That's nonsense. There is a difference between anarchism and minarchism, and the anarchists will be against government no matter how small it is.
I'm expecting that he means fewer will convert to anarchism, if they view the State as less of a threat.
Joe
Thank you, Joe -- that is exactly what I meant.
Quote from: watershed on January 30, 2008, 09:05 PM NHFT
18-25 yr old males(human) tend to lack confidence when with older males and try to impress
I thought I was always right at that age ... knew I was better than old foggies and never tried to impress anyone.
I am in your 36- category and I am absolutely useless to society. :)
This example of anarchy is truly not the model we wish to live. We know prosperity and excellance, this is devoid of some of the things we hold dearest.
How does this translate to us trying to secure a lower dependency on government?
It doesn't. Somalia is a power struggle between aggressive forces searching for power, not liberty.
Not only that, Somalia is a classic example of what happens when the existing model of government is overthrown without anything to replace the services it had provided, such as security and other infrastructure. The free market just doesn't move in to fill the void instantly; that can take decades, while authoritarian factions struggle to take over again.
That is why the infrastructure of freedom has to be built first, and must replace the existing model of government through superior competence in the marketplace.
"Somalia" is just a regional name. The States are the individual clans all vying for control over "Somalia."
the government doesn't provide security .... they pretend
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 08, 2008, 07:44 PM NHFT
the government doesn't provide security .... they pretend
Perhaps it is artificial security, but try suddenly removing
what passes for government from today's society, where individuals are conditioned to depend on "the government" to tell them right from wrong and keep them in line, and see what happens.
Of course, that is not within our ability. But I think it is pretty clear that if we woke up tomorrow and there was no "government" anymore, with all else remaining the same, you would see massive looting, thefts, fraud, and general chaos as a small number of individuals with no personal moral compass suddenly find their dirty deeds unhindered by the blue-light gang.
Heck, saw that in the LA riots.
But if government only protected us from aggression, instead of enforcing social mores and elitism... it probably wouldn't raise as many eyebrows. And definately wouldn't be going broke.
right now all those with no morals have organized .... if they were destroyed ... we would have less suffering :)
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 09, 2008, 05:16 PM NHFT
But if government only protected us from aggression, instead of enforcing social mores and elitism... it probably wouldn't raise as many eyebrows.
That's the same argument srqrebel makes—except you say it like it's a
good thing.
Not exactly, by 'raising fewer eyebrows'... it would simply be 'turning down the heat.'
Its largely the difference between minarchy and anarchy.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 10, 2008, 03:15 PM NHFT
Not exactly, by 'raising fewer eyebrows'... it would simply be 'turning down the heat.'
Its largely the difference between minarchy and anarchy.
Of course... no disagreement there. The impression that you are saying it as if "raising fewer eyebrows", "turning down the heat", and "minarchy" were good things, still remains ;) :P
Not that it really matters to me... everyone must reach their own conclusions, and I'm betting the longer you hang around here, the more closely our conclusions will match each others', in the long run :)
At any rate, you certainly do not come across as a complete statist, and I respect that.
I don't view minarchy as good or bad... just an outcome of a societal mindset.
Its a habit of humans to propose societal mores to maintain a semblance of order.
A good open thought example would be driving on the right-hand side of the road. Some semblance of order is necessary to avoid accidents, but the actual rules are arbitrary.
The problem of course is the expansion of the minarchy into every facet of life, or even to a singularity.
The question is, do you think these social mores should be universally imposed, or do you believe that people should be free to leave the place(s) in which they are, and do their own thing elsewhere? If it's the latter, than what you're really describing isn't minarchy at all, but anarchism, due to the voluntary nature of people settling in the place in which those mores are imposed.
I had a similar debate over this with Malum Prohibitum over on the FSP forum recently, and even though he strenuously claims he isn't an anarchist, he actually believes in this sort of voluntary and localized model of government, so he is. >:D
I agree my friend.
Maybe we will just have to let them have their pet titles ... especially if they actually live as voluntarists or anarchists :)
I would have never guessed a few years ago that anyone would call me an anarchist ... and I didn't even have bad connotations in my head about the term.
An Anarchists believes in a Society of One. Mostly meaning that they chose not to impose their mores on others, and wish the same in reverse.
I find that many can agree with the principal, but have failings at its enactment. Its the nature of humans to be emotional, and thus irrational, in their response.
As for leaving one place(s) and travelling to another, not so much a problem if one accepts the conditions of the place they've travelled to. Most don't.
I would think that the West was settled by anarchy, local clans, natives, pilgrims, etc.
I also think that we could "resettle" here if many left because of a collapse in gov services. This will encourage others to go elsewhere for hand outs.
I personally know a family who left to Florida to seek more free stuff cuz he is simply lazy.
If the current economic situation fails, we would see an increase of agriculture and an agrarian life style, those particular efforts require hard disciplined work ...and with a low demand for foreign labor, the quality of life will endure. Less choice of goods perhaps but the long term is beneficial.
Quote from: planetaryjim on March 18, 2008, 10:04 PM NHFTWould you like to know more?
From someone such as yourself who actually knows the subject matter? Absolutely!
To planetaryjim... thank you for providing such detailed insight into the actual situation in Somalia. These are all good things to know.
Quote from: planetaryjim on March 18, 2008, 10:04 PM NHFT
The subject header on this thread is colorful in itself "anarchist state" means...what? Oxymorons do it without doing it, I guess.
LOL... I'm surprised I never noticed that on my own. The term "anarchist state" is about the ultimate oxymoron -- just like the oxymoron "Free State", only more universally obvious ;D
interesting.
How common is the government paper currency?
How common is barter? trade with other currencies? trade with metals?
It doesn't sound like a vacation destination, but a grand adventure. What resources were needed for your trip? Simply something much more than a visa and your passport.
Honor and respect...something that should happen more in the US.
Do they encourage Western business? or see it as another opportunist ripping them off?
Must be lost of scepticism.