EPT
and the tread name lol
succes of ana...l hahahah
sorry
Somalia - Success of Anarchy - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Coutcha
Canada519 Posts
and the tread name lol succes of ana...l hahahah sorry | ||
|
Celadan
Norway471 Posts
This is pretty bad because discussions like this happens to go nowhere, no matter how rational the arguments are; the other part will always refuse that they are wrong (this goes either way) Try posting this on anarchistblackcat.org or some other forum danson It must be sad walking around the world deluded to think you are a slave and that everyone is out to get you. If you run out of foil just let me know so i can make you a new hat. ?? | ||
|
Jawaka
United States7 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:01 Slakter wrote: Somalia is not an anarchy, if anything it´s mostly a truly libertarian nation where the state has been abolished and warmongers and other people with power has taken over the seat. An Anarchy demands the abolishment of hierarchies, anyone can look at Somalia and see that is not the case there. Anarchy also demands the equality among humans (oh well, modern Anarchy anyways) which also is not the case in Somalia. This. Again, libertarianism and true anarchy are not the same thing, so stop treating them as such. You don't have to agree with the ideology, but at least educate yourself. | ||
|
Vul
United States685 Posts
I hope you realize: the argument youre presenting is the same argument used to justify slavery: that the slave would be inable to take care of himself in absence of his master assigning duties, feeding him and giving him a roof to live under This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. To be blunt, using cheap argumentation like that looks even worse when you're defending something as fringe as anarchy. When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their "services" on mutually acceptable terms? The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 02 2011 01:12 BlackFlag wrote: no it isn't. because an anarchist society is not one without rules but without hierarchy, while a libertiarian one is a society without rules but with hierarchy. but i will stop takling about it, because people don't want to acknowledge the difference anyway. I did not say the same, I said similar. And both suffer from the same wishful thinking. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. More a direct result of that government taxing them. On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 02 2011 01:35 xarthaz wrote: Where is the blindness - for as i noted in my deep philosophical ramblings beforehand - the idea Molyneux talks about is true. It is strictly, and definitionally true, because redefining the terms that lead to its conclusions in a different way, is absurd and counter to the perception of those ideas that the mind assumes as a synthetic a priori. Frankly libertarianism of your kind (based somewhat on Mises and Rothbard) looks exactly like a religion. You profess to be enlightened, you hold the only truth and those who do not see it are servants/slaves of evil. You also have a dogma although you call it a priori synthetic truth and claim that it is irrefutable. Just for your information existence of synthetic a priori truths is far from clear. And your specific version of it , the axiom of human action, is also far from evident even more. | ||
|
Cain0
United Kingdom608 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 02 2011 04:23 brain_ wrote: The point here isn't that Somalia is a paradise. The point is that Somalia is improving at an impressive rate despite the absence of a state - something that "conventional wisdom" would tell you is impossible. But they have state, just not one. It is like saying US in the midst of civil war had no state. | ||
|
KangaRuthless
United States304 Posts
On July 01 2011 12:22 T0fuuu wrote: Its not a success of anarchy. Its just what should of been done with Africa from long long ago. Get out, let them fix their own problems instead of inserting dictators and throwing aid at them. Trading a corrupt government for warlords and gangs is not an improvement. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:39 Cain0 wrote: I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say. And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree.  | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:44 KangaRuthless wrote: Trading a corrupt government for warlords and gangs is not an improvement. This is non-sense, basically Somalia has improved in every possible way since the collapse of their government. What on earth is your basis to say it is not an improvement? Just because you said so? | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:39 mcc wrote: Frankly libertarianism of your kind (based somewhat on Mises and Rothbard) looks exactly like a religion. You profess to be enlightened, you hold the only truth and those who do not see it are servants/slaves of evil. You also have a dogma although you call it a priori synthetic truth and claim that it is irrefutable. Just for your information existence of synthetic a priori truths is far from clear. And your specific version of it , the axiom of human action, is also far from evident even more. It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote: More a direct result of that government taxing them. Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well. So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter. Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable. Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods. On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that. So it is simply hopelessly naive? | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote: More a direct result of that government taxing them. Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect. It is based on consent, just not on the consent of everyone, such are human societies. It has nothing to do with the state even, it is much broader phenomenon. On July 02 2011 05:44 Treemonkeys wrote: And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree. All human organizations are corrupt. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote: It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that. Not really, that is kind of different "branch" of that ideology. And mostly it is not that simple. They have to assume million and one thing apart from the non-initiation of aggression to even get anywhere. Big problem is also the actual definition of aggression as it is highly subjective and all definitions that try to make it objective suffer from a lot of other problems. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:50 TheFrankOne wrote: Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well. So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter. Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable. Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods. How do you want to define slavery? I define it as being forceful deprived of your labor which is exactly what taxes are. But there is no reason to debate if we should call it slavery or not, you can call it whatever you want. What is clear that you have no choice to have a portion of your labor taken from you. You completely ignored my post on consent, so there is no reason to respond to that again - but I will try to add to it. You are just wrong. The arguments for the utility of government may have some merit, the arguments for the non-existent voluntary nature of it do not. Even to say "you could work for an amendment" - you could work withing the rails and limitations government imposed on your life and try to make it more desirable, akin to a slave trying to negotiate for a bigger living area. That is not, at all, consent. It is simply a little breathing room within the rules imposed on you. You're god damn right that government obtaining a contractual agreement is unreasonable, so stop saying it is what it clearly is not. Not being reasonable is not an excuse to call it something completely incorrect. It is sad that you are so unable to defend the merits of government without resorting to blatant falsehoods to pretend as if it something else. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:59 mcc wrote: Not really, that is kind of different "branch" of that ideology. And mostly it is not that simple. They have to assume million and one thing apart from the non-initiation of aggression to even get anywhere. Big problem is also the actual definition of aggression as it is highly subjective and all definitions that try to make it objective suffer from a lot of other problems. Oh please, enough with the assumptions. Rothbard's work is in fact based on non-aggression. That's not to see he is right or anything, that that is the basis of it. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
The 'succes of anarchy in somalia' is pretty much an endless civil war, endless famine, the total collapse of foreign aid to the country and insane crime rates. Arguing that somalia is 'a model for the rest of the world' is like arguing that WWI was awesome because it finally allowed for a renovation of the landscape in northern france. Take the mobile cellphone 'example': Mobile cellphone serives are booming in all of africa, but aren't actually in somalian hands (all arab/south african operators), but the difference is that the cellphone explosion happened in the rest of africa about 5 years ago. And if you're lagging behind that much, it's easy to show comparatively high growth percentages. This is a horrible thread. Somalia isn't some anarchistic paradise. It's a failed state. Playing pirate out on the high seas is not the equivalent of economical enterpreneurs, it's the outcome of a country where food and other resources are so scarce and the government is so weak that people have no actual choice but to obtain their food violently. Not to even mention the violence between groups inside the country over scarce resources. Somalia is pretty much the worst place you could possibly live in the world, and the fact that it is (slightly) improving is only a testament to how absolutely horrific is was before. | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic. To be blunt, using cheap argumentation like that looks even worse when you're defending something as fringe as anarchy. The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else. On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote: It is based on consent, just not on the consent of everyone, such are human societies. It has nothing to do with the state even, it is much broader phenomenon. All human organizations are corrupt. On July 02 2011 05:50 TheFrankOne wrote: Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well. So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter. Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable. Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods. So it is simply hopelessly naive? There are 2 options: Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them). Furthermore, any property at all in such a scenario belongs to government. As all the property rules in the area are decided by government, it must mean that by default, government owns all production, and only by its compassion is the citizen allowed to have some of it. In essence this implies 100% taxation, surely not a concept most here would welcome. Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct. So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario. | ||
| ||
