• Welcome to New Hampshire Underground.
 

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Main Menu

case study on successfull anarchist state...somalia

Started by Mrs. Concious, March 04, 2006, 11:02 AM NHFT

Previous topic - Next topic

srqrebel


John Edward Mercier

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.

MaineShark

Quote from: MobileDigit on January 29, 2008, 07:09 PM NHFT
Quote 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

watershed

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

srqrebel

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.

Russell Kanning

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. :)

watershed

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?

John Edward Mercier

It doesn't. Somalia is a power struggle between aggressive forces searching for power, not liberty.

srqrebel

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.

J’raxis 270145

"Somalia" is just a regional name. The States are the individual clans all vying for control over "Somalia."

Russell Kanning

the government doesn't provide security .... they pretend

srqrebel

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.

John Edward Mercier

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.


Russell Kanning

right now all those with no morals have organized .... if they were destroyed ... we would have less suffering :)

J’raxis 270145

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.