case study on successfull anarchist state...somalia

[srqrebel]

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.

[J’raxis 270145]

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.

[Vitruvian]

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.

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.

[John Edward Mercier]

He's suggesting that their 'adaptation' would be violence.

[srqrebel]

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.

[MaineShark]

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 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

[srqrebel]

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.

[MaineShark]

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.

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

[J’raxis 270145]

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.

[srqrebel]

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.

[srqrebel]

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

[MaineShark]

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).

Indeed.  In theory, it can.  In practice, I think the odds are extraordinarily small of a successful change in only a couple years.

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.

Indeed.  Which is one of my reasons for rejecting the utterly-artificial system called "pacifism."  Human nature will reject it.

Joe

[watershed]

Would it then be survival for the fittest? 100% Natural.

[MobileDigit]

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.

[Russell Kanning]

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.