SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Sunday, November 6 - 6:16am

Link

Edit

If any proof of that were needed, all one has to do is look at Somalia.

Post 1

Sunday, November 6 - 8:35am

Link

Edit

Sure, look at Somalia - but make a valid inquiry rather than just a self-satisfying and completely irrelevant comparison with the US or New Zealand or other 1st world nation.

Of course you or I don't want to live in Somalia now! But can you honestly claim you'd wanted to have lived there prior to 1991? How about living in similar surrounding regions which currently have central govts - nations like Djibouti, Ethiopia or Eritrea?

Somalia is in an area that's always been third world and rife with tribal warfare. Thanks to private enterprise it has made progress in certain areas relative to its own state-era or its also-backwards neighbors. It's still nowhere that people used to living in developed countries would want to live - but expecting it to be would be dropping context.

A fair next question and test in the ongoing experiment of anarchy in Somalia I'd say is:
1) In the next 10-20 years, does it evolve/devolve into a typical government?
2) If not, how does the progress made there compare to neighboring nation-states which were less backward to begin with, such as Kenya?

(Edited by Aaron
on 11/06, 8:36am)

Post 2

Sunday, November 6 - 9:16am

Link

Edit

A fair next question and test in the ongoing experiment of anarchy in Somalia I'd say is:
1) In the next 10-20 years, does it evolve/devolve into a typical government?
2) If not, how does the progress made there compare to neighboring nation-states which were less backward to begin with, such as Kenya?

I'm sure the residents will enjoy being part of your noble experiment. Yours is the perennial utopian plea, it takes time. Sadly, no matter how much time these flights of fancy are awarded, it is never enough.

Domestic carnage, now filled the whole year
With feast-days, old men from the chimney-nook,
The maiden from the busom of her love,
The mother from the cradle of her babe,
The warrior from the field - all perished, all -
Friends, enemies, of all parties, ages, ranks,
Head after head, and never heads enough
For those that bade them fall.
William Wordsworth

Post 3

Sunday, November 6 - 4:30pm

Link

Edit

'My' noble experiment? I must have missed where I removed the government of Somalia. Kind of like how you missed the whole point about comparing the country to its prior self or other 3rd world African nation states.

Post 4

Sunday, November 6 - 8:25pm

Link

Edit

It's an interesting statement. Taken out of context, unfortunately, it becomes an unsupported statement attacking an undefined concept.

What is it that Rand defines as 'anarchism'? What is it about that notion, so defined, that makes it whim-worshipping, context-dropping, and collectivistic? These questions require answers, in order to justify such a passionate denunciation.

Of course, I mean them rhetorically - I've read the work in question, and I happen to agree, for the most part. But this particular quote, in isolation, doesn't even make for a good aphorism, much less a philosophical argument.

Post 5

Monday, November 7 - 5:07am

Link

Edit

It reads like a parody of Ayn Rand.

You could substitute almost anything for "anarchism" and still have a true sentence.
Read it with "states rights" or "monetist economics" or "new theater" or "playing the trombone."

Post 6

Monday, November 7 - 9:09am

Link

Edit

Somalia is no more an example of "anarchy" than China is of "limited government." Hey, they have a Constitution. Everyone can vote ... and run for office!
See here:
http://english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html

You might object to this particular clause (from a different document):
Article 6 Individual and Social Responsibility
Every person is responsible for him- or herself and advances, according to his or her abilities, the goals of state and society. (my emphasis)

Whatever Somalia and China are, neither one is a paradigm for anything advocated by anyone here. As for that other clause... well... you might want to consider the context ...

Post 7

Monday, November 7 - 11:41am

Link

Edit

Well, CIA Factbook says, "The regime of Mohamed SIAD Barre was ousted in January 1991; turmoil, factional fighting, and anarchy have followed in the years since." The only "anarchism" that I could possibly favor would be one in which nobody tried to seize power, but I cannot conceive of that happening in the real world.

Post 8

Monday, November 7 - 4:09pm

Link

Edit

Good for you Laure, you did your homework.

Somalia is the province of somewhere between 27-29 competing warlords (or protection agencies for those who prefer that kind of language) depending on the day you inquire.

Post 9

Monday, November 7 - 8:12pm

Link

Edit

Laure, if you insist on confusing anarchy with chaos you will never understand anarcho-capitalism.

Robert, warlords are protection rackets, not protection agencies.

Post 10

Monday, November 7 - 9:51pm

Link

Edit

Okay. Mrs. X is pregnant, and doesn't want to be.

Protection "Agency" A, representing a group of Catholics, believes that her fetus is a human being, with full human rights.

Protection "Agency" B, representing Mrs. X, believes it is not a human, has no rights, and that Mrs. X, their client, therefore has the right to have an abortion.

This conflict is not small potatoes. To Agency A and its clients, an innocent human life is about to be taken...murdered. There is no government to appeal to to stop this act. There are only "private defense agencies."

And this one is determined to prevent the "murder."

Mrs. X, having been threatened by such anti-abortionists, goes to the doctor's office to have her abortion, protected by armed representatives of Agency B.

At the door, barring the way, stand armed representatives of Agency A, and a gang of Catholic clients.

Now, remember: there is no government -- no final arbiter with the power to enforce a verdict.

How do you reach a "compromise" when the issue is life or death?

The avoidance of violence in this anarchist scenario requires that someone betray his moral principles. It depends on somebody being immoral. So, who is supposed to surrender moral principles, and permit what they believe to be a violation of rights, simply in order to avoid a violent confrontation? Should the anti-abortionists and their hired guns allow a "murder"? Or should Mrs. X and HER hired guns allow them to violate her right to her own life and body?

Folks, I could paint you scores of such scenarios, each involving conflicting interpretations of rights. However, in anarchist fantasies, all of these conflicting interpretations simply vanish. Anarchists assume what is not, never was, and probably never will be the case: a population which agrees with their theory of rights, and exactly how it applies to every conceivable situation.

Now, just watch the evasive rationalizing following this comment, and you'll discover why I have concluded that arguing with anarchists is akin to arguing with religious zealots.

Unlike anarchism, a constitutionally limited government is a system invented for real human beings, as they are -- with all their conflicting views and values. It's a system that works because it has the ultimate power to end violent conflicts by enforcing a final verdict in disputes.

And that is the only moral legal arrangement, because no one's rights are safe when each individual can arbitrarily define what rights are.

Post 11

Tuesday, November 8 - 12:05am

Link

Edit

Robert,

Excellent explanation, and exactly to the point. Two observations:

1. At the core of theoretical arguments for "market law," such as those of David Friedman, is the idea that there are no objective rights - that rights are "social" in the sense that the only possible basis for a peaceful society is compromise among subjective moral opinions, so that equilibrium "market law" reflects an average of the subjective moral opinions of the participants.

2. Many "market law" libertarians favor "market law" precisely because it would give their gang - however small - the power to hire their own armed goons to enforce their subjective "moral codes," or at least compromises that include their "moral codes," on everyone else.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 11/08, 12:08am)

Post 12

Tuesday, November 8 - 5:39am

Link

Edit

Rick,

I would like to hear you ideas about the distinction between anarchy and chaos, and what distinquishes agencies from rackets.

Post 13

Tuesday, November 8 - 6:01am

Link

Edit

You might object to this particular clause (from a different document):
Article 6 Individual and Social Responsibility
Every person is responsible for him- or herself and advances, according to his or her abilities, the goals of state and society. (my emphasis)

That comes from the constitution of a limited state, Switzerland. The previous article says that the purpose of law is to limit government.

"Article 5 Rule of Law
(1) The law is the basis for and limitation of state activity."

Sounds pretty good... but what about the next one, Number 6, that each individual advances the goals of state and society? Those darned old contradictions, they keep cropping up!

Proposition A. No one can show a real example of a "constitutionally limited" state. It is a floating abstraction, an idea without referent in reality.

Proposition B. Every government has limits. Try has they might be totalitarian, none succeeds. Furthermore, the reality of social interactions among humans requires that any organization must balance competing demands. Therefore, every government has some measures of checks and balances to limit its operations. A few years ago, I read a book by a KGB general. His wife was also in the KGB. As a result of a power struggle in the Kremlin, police showed up at their door. His wife -- a KGB lawyer, actually -- told them that their search warrant was incorrect -- and they went way! That sounds like a "constitutionally limited" government in action to me.

Resolution: Every organization seeks to further its well-being, whether the organization is a cell, or a human, or a corporation, or a government. Therefore, every government expands to its natural limits; and every government has natural limits.

It is true that there are "anarchists" who like "mini-archists" want to convince a lot of other people to change their minds -- change their philosophies, or adopt a ready-made philosophy -- and construct the dreamworld they envision.

When I write about private protection, I am explaining how an entirely different mode of operation actually works in the real world.

Two out of every three patrol officers is privately employed.

Most property protection is the result of physical or procedural safeguards -- from gross architectures, to specific signs, fences, alarms, and even weapons -- rather than human agents.

The American Arbitration Agency operates in several countries and handles millions of cases each year.
Ford and General Motors compete from headquarters and factories within shooting range of each other, and not a shot is fired between them.

This is how the real world actually works -- and no one has to be philosophically argued out an idea that they were not philosophically argued into in the first place.

Post 14

Tuesday, November 8 - 6:05am

Link

Edit

In the US there is a large minority who oppose abortion in most circumstances (ie. no rape, incest or obvious threat to the life of the mother). There is a tiny fraction of 1% who believe so strongly about it to kill or die to prevent others from having abortions. The all-too-common horror story some like to paint relies on intentionally confusing the two.

If 40% (or even 10%) of the populace in an anarchocapitalist system were so violently opposed to abortion that they'd die or kill for it, then indeed either:
1) Doctor shootings, clinic bombings and war between gangs of supporters and opponents would be ever-present, widespread and bloody
2) The minority would gain power beyond their numbers, as enforcement agencies negotiate and agree to forbid abortion simply to avoid the less controlled violence by the zealots

Of course one of these scenarios is what would result in the US today if zealots using deadly force against abortion were really that widespread. That size minority of violent zealots would certainly also lay to ruin the best-laid-plans of minarchists starting that variant of utopia. The situation undoubtedly remains sticky but far less dramatic when considering the reality that the murderous anti-abortionists are fortunately a tiny minority of the abortion opponents.

I personally have very little confidence in the long-term stability of either anarchocapitalism or minarchy in the real world (ie. unless a vast majority of people miraculously all came to hold the same rational ethics). I'm just tired of seeing an anti-abortionist bogeyman being tossed about by one viewpoint when it's comparably a threat to peace and stability anywhere.

Post 15

Tuesday, November 8 - 6:14am

Link

Edit

Robert Bidinotto's restatement of Ayn Rand's challenge changes nothing.

If you want to see how governments solve the problem, look at the immediate cause of World War I. A Serb shot an Austrian in Bosnia and the problem was so complicated that millions died.

Of course, there was a more basic cause: that the agencies involved were governments.

Below that is more basic problem: govern-mentality.

Reasonable people who use their intellects to identify the facts of reality behave differently than those who subjectively experience an incomprehensible chaos.

If you want to enhance your freedom -- your possible ranges of actions -- you will be rational. When you want to protect your property from predation, you will find an agoric solution.