EPTSomalia - Success of Anarchy - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
| ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
On July 01 2011 15:40 Sanctimonius wrote: You're right in that its easier to create a strong government when one is already in place, but that doesn't mean government is bad. Looking at history, a country is easier to conquer when it has a central authority - win one big battle and you take the country. If power is split in little communities, you have to fight each and every one. But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did. See the wars between Greece and Rome as compared to the Gallic Campaigns, or the Viking invasion of England compared to similar campaigns elsewhere. A limited government simply limits the damage it can do, while also limiting the good it can do. This is only a good thing if you inherently think government and central authority is a bad thing, which I assume you do  But if a government works well, in a local area, then why would you want to limit that? A strong, well run government is a good thing, surely? The fact it could be taken over by, for example, a dictatorial coup, doesn't mean its a bad thing inherently.No. Government in all forms is bad. All it does it introduce coercion and strip away individual liberties, and offers only oppression and illusions. The subject of defense in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society is a difficult one, as it would have to address the "freeloader" dilemma, likely through large-scale insurance organizations or voluntary funding. However, you must understand that security, like anything else, is a good that the free market is capable of providing far better than any government. I encourage you to research these things on your own (Mises is a good place to start, also check out the Anarcho-Capitalism subreddit), if just for curiosity's sake, and you may find yourself seeing the truth of them! Also keep in mind that the incentive for violence will decrease drastically when there is economic prosperity and interdependence. | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
On July 01 2011 15:53 TheFrankOne wrote: Ugh, sometimes I think references to history should be outlawed in this forum. The Greco-Persian wars come to mind when reading your post. on topic: Somalia is now 4th lowest in GDP per capita, and managed to scrape out a 4 year increase in life expectancy in 20 years... I know that they have a thriving telecommunications and private security (rofl) industry but cmon, this is just a dysfunctional state. @brain_ less government is not always good, no government is bad; you need a government, otherwise people like me would take your stuff because I would have no reason to care about your property rights, simple as that. The Greco-Persian wars are a good example of my point. A collection of city-states with no central authority were seen as an easy target by a much stronger power. The bigger power attacked and won some victories, but because the city-states were seperate they continued to fight and won victories because of inherently better military technologies such as the phalanx and a reliance on foot-soldiers instead of cavalry. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On July 01 2011 15:56 nekolux wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13937486 Enough said. If you genuinely think somalia is prospering or fast improving. You're actually mentally retarded. Literally, IQ<50. If you think children crawling out of their homes and making their own trek to kenyan refugee camps is a good thing. 6 weeks, no support, very little food or water, sores and wounds all over their body. Fuck you sir =) To add more salt to the wound, Somalia had almost 2 million people displaced in their last civil war...and almost 1.5 million displaced in their current civil war. Prosperous nation indeed, and the most they can enjoy is is a GDP growth less than a 1st world nation | ||
|
Troublesome
United Kingdom522 Posts
| ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 01 2011 15:16 brain_ wrote: I didn't ask you what Somalia's neighbors were just because I wanted to make you look silly. I had my doubts on how much you actually knew about what you were talking about. Also, Djibouti.Nice little ad hominem. To be fair I could only name Ethiopia and Kenya, Eritrea slipped my mind (gee I wonder why, such a normal sounding name). As for its neighbors... Look at the rates of change. Somalia's infant mortality rating is dropping faster than 2/3 of its neighbors, fresh water access improvement rate also beats 2/3 of its neighbors, life expectancy is increasing faster than 2/3 of its neighbors, etc. In all of these cases Ethiopia beats Somalia (though Somalia's statistics are better than Ethiopia's in some categories, especially telecommunications) but look at their histories: Somalia suffered under a brutal, economically crippling military dictatorship for years and suffered far more damage than Ethiopia. Also, as for where you'd want to live... Compare murder rates (per 100,000) according to the UN: Somalia: 3.2 Eritrea: 16 Ethiopia: 21 (2004 data is the only dataset available for all countries) As for hunger, Somalia isn't ranked in the Global Hunger Index. But seeing as how Eritrea and Ethiopia are ranked #3 and #5 worst in the world for starvation, respectively, it can't be much worse. Libertarianism follows naturally from the assumption of basic human rights: that individuals have the right to their life and their property. If you opened your mind and looked to facts and morals, instead of allowing yourself to be spoonfed political opinion (including what is "crazy" and what isn't) you might see that. You missed a pretty important "neighbor". One of two places in Somalia with a central government, and thus enjoys stability and opportunity that is unheard of in the South. Meanwhile, Somalia receives one of the highest amounts of food aid of any country in the world. The free market isn't feeding these people. In fact, it's leading to the theft, hording, and commercialization of aid, which is causing more starving people. You can't just look at cherrypicked statistics that ignore geographic reality. You can't just take what you learned from reading Atlas Shrugged, and apply it to impoverished African Countries you don't know much about. Extreme views like libertarianism don't follow naturally from the real world. They follow from bogus assumptions, and are propagated by wealthy idiots like the man who wrote that article. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On July 01 2011 15:40 Sanctimonius wrote: But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did. On July 01 2011 16:00 Sanctimonius wrote: The Greco-Persian wars are a good example of my point. A collection of city-states with no central authority were seen as an easy target by a much stronger power. The bigger power attacked and won some victories, but because the city-states were seperate they continued to fight and won victories because of inherently better military technologies such as the phalanx and a reliance on foot-soldiers instead of cavalry. Guess I don't understand your point, since I though i had provided an example in which the exact opposite occurs but you said it was a good example. The city-states continuing to fight because they "were separate" is a strange statement I don't understand, its not like Athens or Sparta was sacked by the Persians. I would say that the technological advantage of the Greeks doesn't seem relate to your previous point at all. Edit: Also, typically in a war, each side will win at least some victories, even in a proper "splendid little war." | ||
|
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
 | ||
|
polysciguy
United States488 Posts
what i mean by that is, if the positions of power which created the vacuum had never been concieved of or implemented, would there be bloodshed and violence to create a position of power? @Thefrankone, no we don't need a government. what is stopping you from taking his stuff is that in a true anarchy, which i will quote from v for vendetta (the book not the movie) means without leaders, not without order, is everyone else in the community. anarchy is communism in the truest sense of the word. | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
On July 01 2011 16:00 brain_ wrote: No. Government in all forms is bad. All it does it introduce coercion and strip away individual liberties, and offers only oppression and illusions. The subject of defense in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society is a difficult one, as it would have to address the "freeloader" dilemma, likely through large-scale insurance organizations or voluntary funding. However, you must understand that security, like anything else, is a good that the free market is capable of providing far better than any government. I encourage you to research these things on your own (Mises is a good place to start, also check out the Anarcho-Capitalism subreddit), if just for curiosity's sake, and you may find yourself seeing the truth of them! Also keep in mind that the incentive for violence will decrease drastically when there is economic prosperity and interdependence. Can I ask why government in all forms is inherently bad? That's a pretty strong claim, I would like to see some reasons why | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On July 01 2011 16:23 polysciguy wrote: Brain_ makes a good point, the chaos that is associated with anarchy comes not from the lack of leadership, but from the vacuum of power. if such a vacuum had never been created, by a lack of government having been formed to begin with would there still be that bloodshed? what i mean by that is, if the positions of power which created the vacuum had never been concieved of or implemented, would there be bloodshed and violence to create a position of power? @Thefrankone, no we don't need a government. what is stopping you from taking his stuff is that in a true anarchy, which i will quote from v for vendetta (the book not the movie) means without leaders, not without order, is everyone else in the community. anarchy is communism in the truest sense of the word. A pointless question because from the start of humanity we have always have a power structure in place. It's like asking what the world would be like if air was toxic. I am sure you could try and find an answer but what value does that answer have? | ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
On July 01 2011 16:10 tree.hugger wrote: I didn't ask you what Somalia's neighbors were just because I wanted to make you look silly. I had my doubts on how much you actually knew about what you were talking about. Also, Djibouti. You missed a pretty important "neighbor". One of two places in Somalia with a central government, and thus enjoys stability and opportunity that is unheard of in the South. Meanwhile, Somalia receives one of the highest amounts of food aid of any country in the world. The free market isn't feeding these people. In fact, it's leading to the theft, hording, and commercialization of aid, which is causing more starving people. You can't just look at cherrypicked statistics that ignore geographic reality. You can't just take what you learned from reading Atlas Shrugged, and apply it to impoverished African Countries you don't know much about. Extreme views like libertarianism don't follow naturally from the real world. They follow from bogus assumptions, and are propagated by wealthy idiots like the man who wrote that article. In the same breath you say that foreign aid is not the free market, and then tell me that foreign aid is destructive. Draw the natural conclusion: hunger problems are largely a result of foreign interference. | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
On July 01 2011 16:13 TheFrankOne wrote: Guess I don't understand your point, since I though i had provided an example in which the exact opposite occurs but you said it was a good example. The city-states continuing to fight because they "were separate" is a strange statement I don't understand, its not like Athens or Sparta was sacked by the Persians. I would say that the technological advantage of the Greeks doesn't seem relate to your previous point at all. Edit: Also, typically in a war, each side will win at least some victories, even in a proper "splendid little war." Athens was sacked, in the second war. Xerxes broke through the Spartan phalanxes at Thermopylae (300 wasn't far wrong  ) and burned Athens down. Other city-states had the coice to continue fighting because they had their own standing armies - in a centralised state, generally you have a single army. it falls, and you lose. That doesn't mean a centralised state is worse than a federalised state, or a collection of city-states. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11951 Posts
On July 01 2011 16:00 brain_ wrote: No. Government in all forms is bad. All it does it introduce coercion and strip away individual liberties, and offers only oppression and illusions. The subject of defense in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society is a difficult one, as it would have to address the "freeloader" dilemma, likely through large-scale insurance organizations or voluntary funding. However, you must understand that security, like anything else, is a good that the free market is capable of providing far better than any government. I encourage you to research these things on your own (Mises is a good place to start, also check out the Anarcho-Capitalism subreddit), if just for curiosity's sake, and you may find yourself seeing the truth of them! Also keep in mind that the incentive for violence will decrease drastically when there is economic prosperity and interdependence. So you think an "anarchistic" society would need large-scale corporate militia. And you actually think that is a good idea? Either you end up with one monopolistic organisation that basically IS a government, or you end up with multiple different well-armed forces which are either geographically seperated resulting in several smaller states, or they are not seperated and have different goals, which to me seems to like to invite conflicts. So you end up with some strange cyberpunk setting of corporate wars. Especially important is that those militas would not serve the interest of the general populace, but of a small subset of it, which to me sounds like a lot worse then having a government | ||
|
Jawaka
United States7 Posts
| ||
|
polysciguy
United States488 Posts
On July 01 2011 16:31 Sanctimonius wrote: Athens was sacked, in the second war. Xerxes broke through the Spartan phalanxes at Thermopylae (300 wasn't far wrong ) and burned Athens down. Other city-states had the coice to continue fighting because they had their own standing armies - in a centralised state, generally you have a single army. it falls, and you lose. That doesn't mean a centralised state is worse than a federalised state, or a collection of city-states.actually it was quite wrong. xerxes faced the combined greek forces of 7000 men at thermopylae, after 2 days of fighting xerxes was informed of a path around the army at the pass, the greeks found out before he could complete the envelopement and withdrew leaving only the 300 spartans and about 1400 other greek volunteers to act as a rear guard to cover the withdrawal as they fell back. The persians weren't fully driven back until the next year at the battle of platea. on topic: i wouldn't go by any economic statistics either because after WWII the soviet economy improved at a much greater rater than the west, leading to kruschev's statement about crushing the west, he most likely meant economically. as well as statistics showing the amazing increase of china's economy after becoming communist. those factors weren't because it was a better system, but because the economy's were so bad that the increases looked amazing. | ||
|
desRow
Canada2654 Posts
On July 01 2011 16:13 obesechicken13 wrote: I just thought Somalia was a place full of pirates. Wow yea me too jack sparrow & company | ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
On July 01 2011 16:31 Simberto wrote: So you think an "anarchistic" society would need large-scale corporate militia. And you actually think that is a good idea? Either you end up with one monopolistic organisation that basically IS a government, or you end up with multiple different well-armed forces which are either geographically seperated resulting in several smaller states, or they are not seperated and have different goals, which to me seems to like to invite conflicts. So you end up with some strange cyberpunk setting of corporate wars. Especially important is that those militas would not serve the interest of the general populace, but of a small subset of it, which to me sounds like a lot worse then having a government No more "dangerous" than current governments; also, keep in mind that such security measures would only be necessary if there is a clear threat (such as when one region is in market anarchy and another retains government and threatens to invade). As for everything else, as I said, this is one of the more complex aspects of Anarcho-Capitalism because it deals with anarchism interacting with a statist world. Rather than making me explain everything (which would take a while, not to mention the fact that there are people far more qualified than myself to do that), please research it yourself. If I'm crazy, you should find proof in my rationales, right? Few quick points: 1) Worst case scenario is still government - what we've got now! 2) History's only examples of consistent monopolies were a result of government intervention. Look at utilities, for example. 3) In a world where all interactions are voluntary, the plug could be pulled on militias immediately if they ceased to offer a satisfactory service (IE they started abusing their power). The flow of funds would go something like this: individual people -> insurance companies -> private defense. If the "militia" abused their power, funding could be cut at any point in the chain and that money would go towards funding a new defense firm for the purposes of shutting down the old one. 4) Voluntary participation in defense (by non-paramilitary citizens) would probably help. 5) The contract for defense would be open for competition. Since a primary concern in hiring a defense contractor would be the risk of that power being turned against you, the firms would compete to find the best way to provide assurance that they wouldn't abuse their power. I can't even imagine what that would look like: another example of the market spurring innovation that solves problems in ways we can't predict. | ||
|
partisan
United States783 Posts
| ||
|
Brokenlamp
United States39 Posts
Somalia is not flourishing. The situation in somalia is so bad that we dont even have reliable statistics regarding it (hence its omission from so many national rankings). If a market has sprung up (which isnt surprising, since market activity seems to be a natural impulse in humans), its not the type of market that anyone would want to use as a model for effeciency. Thomas Hobbes explained the problem of anarchy better than anyone 360 years ago (long before game theory and evolutionary biology came along to confirm his suspicions). The logic of anarchy -- the competition for scarce resources and the fear of violence/theft, in the absence of an impartial arbiter, leads to dangerous standoff where, unfortunately, pre-emptive strikes against rivals (real or imagined) become common place, thus inducing a vicious spiral of vendetta and distrust. A perpetual war of all against all. I hope Somalia recovers someday, but if it does, it wont be because it eschewed the rule of law. | ||
| ||
