On July 01 2011 14:33 xarthaz wrote: The reality of modern slavery is not a result of emotions related to suggestions regarding conditions in different areas. It is in fact a definitional issue. And clear at that- what is defined as ownership, property, law, must necessarily imply the condiitions necessary for concluding the reality of slavery. No, it never left, though the prospect of it happening can be somewhat disturbing, none less for myself, hence the cautious approach to a subject grasped at by the more capable members of the Institute.
Now note that the freedom concept as perceived through experience is not subject of the universal definitions that result in conclusions on the subject - it is instead the conditioning. Note how the video touches on this in its assessment of public education, and claims of its real purpose. It is no secret, and a thinking man staying within the boxes of definitional strictness - though it throws himself outside the box of social acceptability. As a result, brave men take that path, and great respect, and fortitude is to be commended. To them - salut, but for the rest of us, the material to ponder about remains in existance - all because of definitional universality.
It is something of a dichotomy between reason from conditions to assessment, and emotions to assessment. While the choice of end assessment always remains subject of emotions, it is the intermediate phase, assessment, which is hijacked by propagandist concepts employed in enslaving the populus.
While reality of conclusions of definitional strictness is sparsely touched upon, as the reactions to article show, it reaffirms the emotion to assessment mechanic - due to fallacy of positivist condition replacing reason. It is the traged of modern mind that Mises has touched upon. The collective delusion exists as such, and its disappearance can only be necessitated by a total paradigm shift in what the epistemological foundations of knowledge in popular mind are considered. Perhaps unlikely given the edicational premise the video touched upon.
I'm not often spurred to argue with strangers on the internet, but this post is utter hand-wavery in the worst way (to borrow a Science Fiction expression).
There is no slavery in a free-thinking democracy. I'm not bound by the state to do anything I don't want to do, besides follow their laws--laws that other free-thinking men created to preserve my rights. The most obvious comparison in the video is the caged pig to modern man: unlike the pig, I can do what I please, go where I want--oh yeah, and I'm sentient to the point of recognizing my own mortality (do you really think pigs would calmly get stuck in cages if they could conceptualize death?) I'm not sent into a field everyday to farm wheat. I'm not worked to the bone turning wheels in a mill to turn that wheat into flour. Long story short: I'm not forced by the state to do anything--unless I choose to work for the state.
The metaphor is absurd and sensationalist. I'm free to create things and make a living without fear of persecution or imprisonment. That is not a "collective delusion." That is fact. Never before in the history of our world has society created parameters in which individuals can thrive as individuals. I don't have to follow tradition or worry about castes; don't have to please anyone but myself nor meet any standards but my own (which should be high). For the most part we are free of censorship.
Now, if you want to get into whether the mass media is turning everyone into a flock of sheep, I'm down. But the video was nonsense.
It's all in the eye of the beholder, If Somalia seems like paradise then OP should move there imo. If you end up high tailing it back to where ever you are from, if you survive, then at least you can see what all the rage is about you are reading or bullshit for that matter.
On July 01 2011 12:25 Legend` wrote: On paper it all seems good, but then theres are still things like
Which needs to be addressed.
Thriving small arms industry with rock bottom prices? Sounds great. Remember, guns are the great equalizer, which make a granny knitting club no less a pushover than a band of grunts. Where there is equality in power, there is peace. As such, these conditions are part of the reason for Peace in somalia. While the foreign opressors - UN, Ethiopia, US, are the reason for violence.
On July 01 2011 17:15 brain_ wrote:if I had a choice of security providers, I doubt I'd choose one that uses my money to extort me in the form of traffic tickets for driving a few miles over the speed limit. I doubt such a firm would last long on the open market.
And when you get someone else killed by speeding you're safe because your security provider has more guns than that of the person you killed?
No fucking way that people would be safe in the world that you describe.
whaaaaa it makes me mad to see that people think this is what anarchy and anarchism looks like. anarchism is anti-capitalism per se. this is just radical capitalism without a government, this has NOTHING to do with anarchism.
I have attempted to move the discussion close to the teleological premises of the debate. To avoid emotional distress. This is of highest relevance to the topic, and as such, the careful analysis of conditions that define the subject of discussion allows for cleear insight into reality. In fact this is the Misesian paradigm, strictness to rules, the a priori system of rigorous logic. As the a posteriori school bombards its dogmatic arguments, and i dare say predictable, the answer must be given. No less than full compliance to the conditions necessary for the acceptance of the analytic system.
Please.
I tore the initial argument to shreds (that Somalia is a good example of your 'teleological premises') so you abandoned reality and have instead attempted to make it an economic theory debate, which is one of the exact same mistakes that those two authors made. You've ignored politics. You've ignored culture. All you want to talk about is numbers, so you're obfuscating your own reality and are completely missing the influences behind the data.
The closest you've come to examining my post is that you don't believe my claims about the US arming and training various warlord factions. Then I post several news articles (hint: not from a blog) about the Pentagon and CIA's secret operations in Somalia (I believe one is titled, 'US secretly backs Somalian warlords' - you can't get much more explicit than that) and you've yet to respond.
Good society without government > good society with government > bad society without government > bad society with government
Couldn't be more wrong. There is none good society without government. Fail. Btw Alien government > Good society without government.
If less government is good, no government is better.
Well ... that doesn't work exactly like that. Btw less government isn't good. Look at the actual crisis.
Democracy is a form of government, and is therefore flawed (especially given the track record of African voters...).
Maybe because it's not a democracy ? REALLY ? :o
How can you expect to improve quality of life without freedom? Government can't wave a magic wand and make everyone's lives better - in fact, attempts to do so (by foreign governments) have only resulted in disaster (foreign aid).
Ok. I would be happy if my government wouldn't have to help somalia's freeeeedoom because they're starving and sick. It's totally our fault.
No. Government in all forms is bad. All it does it introduce coercion and strip away individual liberties, and offers only oppression and illusions.
Yeah ... government should'nt give you security, the right to own something ... You want to be free ? Go live in the woods.
On July 01 2011 17:11 teekesselchen wrote: Success of anarchy, lulz. I hope all of this is irony, seeing the actual living conditions in Somalia. It's quite ridiculous to just say "oh they got mobile network, they must be a great society".
Security firms boom? It's more like Mafia if you look at it. You pay or you get robbed because you are not safe without paying. Not so cool for everyone without a buttload of money.
Please explain to me how that is different from government. If I stop paying my taxes, say, because I don't support America's occupations overseas, I will be arrested (kidnapped) and thrown in jail (held against my will) until I pay, and then I'll probably be charged for their trouble.
You're paying for security right now. Cops don't work for free. The difference between government monopoly and market anarchy is that if I had a choice of security providers, I doubt I'd choose one that uses my money to extort me in the form of traffic tickets for driving a few miles over the speed limit. I doubt such a firm would last long on the open market.
1) Taxes are not arbitrary but made by your democratic (well, more or less... see bush vs kerry, wtf) government. They are dependend on income, so that people who earn less money have to pay less. You are getting a lot back from it: Infrastructure, security, education - all things that lack in Somalia. 2) Yeah people should really be allowed to drive 200 km/h in cities. That would free up a lot of jobs and really benefit the pension offices. I'm sure you get what I'm heading at here. 3) Taxes are also a mean of redistribution to avoid severe poverty, though U.S. citizens don't seem to like that.
I highly doubt a country's telecoms industry is a suitable example of its success nor its need for private security. I would say its public health care and education would be a better benchmark of which neither I would imagine are that great in somalia at the moment.... I could be wrong though
On July 01 2011 12:13 xarthaz wrote: Somalia is experiencing progress according to several criteria, despite (or, some would say, because of) its lack of a strong central government. As a result, it is by far the fastest growing, fastest improving among all the less developed countries. This should be a model for the world..
As Robert Murphy points out in his latest article, despite the biased assessment of BBC's Reflects on 20 Years of Anarchy, careful analysis of conditions in the area suggest remarkable improvement in living standards.
For example, Somalia has the most vibrant telecommunications sector in Africa
Somali telecoms expert Ahmed Farah says the first mobile telephone mast went up in Somalia in 1994, and now someone can make a mobile call from anywhere in the country.
There are nine networks to choose from and they offer services from texting to mobile internet access.
In addition, the area is at the forefront of the development of the security industry,
What is particularly amusing is the complaint that businesses currently must pay private security firms to guard their goods. Well, a government police and court system won't work for tips — they too will need to be financed, but through involuntary taxation. As with any monopoly, the government's provision of a "justice system" will be more expensive — other things being equal — than the provision through private, competing agencies.
In addition, Murphy addresses several of the fallacies statist critics often commit in their assessment of the private security sector.
As Ben Powell et al. in his fantastic work has shown, so Murphy too concludes that if people in the more developed countries of the world wish to help the impoverished region, we can certainly send money and even visit to offer medical services and other assistance. But if the West foists the "gift" of another state on the beleaguered Somalis, their appropriate response should be, "No, you shouldn't have."
Good article, thx for the link. It proves all people wrong which believe hell on earth breaks out in the absence of a central government.
On July 01 2011 19:40 BlackFlag wrote: whaaaaa it makes me mad to see that people think this is what anarchy and anarchism looks like. anarchism is anti-capitalism per se. this is just radical capitalism without a government, this has NOTHING to do with anarchism.
How could you have anarchism without it developing to radical capitalism? If somebody can repair something then he will want something in exchange for doing that, if somebody can craft then he will want something in exchange for that as well, if somebody would grow food...
On July 01 2011 19:40 BlackFlag wrote: whaaaaa it makes me mad to see that people think this is what anarchy and anarchism looks like. anarchism is anti-capitalism per se. this is just radical capitalism without a government, this has NOTHING to do with anarchism.
How could you have anarchism without it developing to radical capitalism? If somebody can repair something then he will want something in exchange for doing that, if somebody can craft then he will want something in exchange for that as well, if somebody would grow food...
No, true Anarchists are all totally selfless and stuff you know? They just work and do stuff for "fun"... Just look at Somalia, they have telephone companies and cheap weapons!
This is all ridiculous Somalia has atleast 2 governments. The notion that there is no government in Somalia is a myth. The most successful Somali government is the Islamic government. The west dont like them one bit and even encouraged Ethiopia to invade Somalia in 2008 to destroy the successful unified Islamic government that they had. There are several warlord groups each of these has a heirarchy sets laws and in some cases collects taxes. In other words Somalia has governments. Not one government but many.
This thread is in line with one of the main problems the US has that is a completely utopian and delusional understanding amongst a noisy minority of the public who adovate destroying the state in the name of saving it. The answer is to form a functional successful government. Many people think destroying the government will help. All they will do is destroy civilisation as we know it. Not a good thing!
Anarchy is a myth. Humans are not an individual species but a pack species. The second you form a clan tribe or pack you have formed a government. There has never been a civilisation on this planet who didnt have a government.
On July 01 2011 19:40 BlackFlag wrote: whaaaaa it makes me mad to see that people think this is what anarchy and anarchism looks like. anarchism is anti-capitalism per se. this is just radical capitalism without a government, this has NOTHING to do with anarchism.
How could you have anarchism without it developing to radical capitalism? If somebody can repair something then he will want something in exchange for doing that, if somebody can craft then he will want something in exchange for that as well, if somebody would grow food...
EPT
![[image loading]](http://images.mises.org/DailyArticleBigImages/5418.jpg)
