So how exactly would you ensure that these private military corporations and volunteer groups wouldn't wage warfare over more territory? or become states themselves? What is preventing people from Civil War without a State such as ours?
In the Anarchic society of Tribal England, civil conflict was the norm among the Celts, Jutes, and other tribes. In a world of Private Property rights, why wouldn't land owners engage in conflict to obtain more land?
Juan:I'm only observing that giving up some individual freedom (being subjected to a uniform monopoly law and enforcement system) has consistently been a characteristic of every society that has ever existed. There has not been a single one that's been able to sustain itself without that ingredient. Hmm. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are fantasy. Simple laws of physics make them impossible." Lord Kelvin, president, British Royal Society (1895)
I'm only observing that giving up some individual freedom (being subjected to a uniform monopoly law and enforcement system) has consistently been a characteristic of every society that has ever existed. There has not been a single one that's been able to sustain itself without that ingredient.
See? Empirical evidence (birds) > abstract laws (supposed physics).
DD5:You are not being coerced for you are not being forced to participate in this forum against your voluntary choice. The rules are a condition for participation authorized by the owners of this website but participation is voluntary! No individual freedom or private property of yours was violated.
Z, you need to understand this.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
scineram:See? Empirical evidence (birds) > abstract laws (supposed physics).
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
scineram: liberty student: z1235:Let's simplify: Minarchy + gold standard is better (more sustainable, more viable, and maximizes individual freedoms) than anarchy. That's incorrect. Minarchy is not sustainable. Viable is arbitrary. Anarchism maximizes individual freedom, not minarchy. Anarchism has no institutional impediment to individual freedom. Minarchism does. Tell that to your somali warlord.
liberty student: z1235:Let's simplify: Minarchy + gold standard is better (more sustainable, more viable, and maximizes individual freedoms) than anarchy. That's incorrect. Minarchy is not sustainable. Viable is arbitrary. Anarchism maximizes individual freedom, not minarchy. Anarchism has no institutional impediment to individual freedom. Minarchism does.
z1235:Let's simplify: Minarchy + gold standard is better (more sustainable, more viable, and maximizes individual freedoms) than anarchy.
That's incorrect.
Minarchy is not sustainable.
Viable is arbitrary.
Anarchism maximizes individual freedom, not minarchy. Anarchism has no institutional impediment to individual freedom. Minarchism does.
Tell that to your somali warlord.
Aren't African countries such as Somalia examples of Anarchies? They mind as well be since the government can barely do anything to maintain order. Somalia has private militias, as does the Congo, Central Africa, Eastern, and Southern. You can correct me, but I don't think its helping those countries at ALL.
some would say that Somalia is an anarchy because a bigger government is replaced by several smaller governments
http://www.puntlandgovt.com/ http://www.somalilandgov.com/
maybe they are wrong about that.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Democracy for Breakfast:Aren't African countries such as Somalia examples of Anarchies?
No. Somalia has competing governments.
Democracy for Breakfast:They mind as well be since the government can barely do anything to maintain order.
Governments never maintain order.
Democracy for Breakfast:Somalia has private militias, as does the Congo, Central Africa, Eastern, and Southern.
So does the United States government.
Democracy for Breakfast:You can correct me, but I don't think its helping those countries at ALL.
They don't have anarchy.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Spideynw: Democracy for Breakfast:Aren't African countries such as Somalia examples of Anarchies? No. Somalia has competing governments.
Would this still not be considered anarchy in the sense that there is no state? A state being a body that holds the so-called "legitimate" monopoly of violence over a given territory?
Spideynw: Democracy for Breakfast:Somalia has private militias, as does the Congo, Central Africa, Eastern, and Southern. So does the United States government.
This is beside the point. Firstly, we are talking about anarchy not the US government. And secondly, on a per capita basis, I think warfare, poverty and theft (ok minus taxation perhaps :) ) caused by militias, within the likes of Somalia and the Congo, are a little more common than in the States.
BTW. I realize that Somalia and the Congo are not anarcho capitalist: eg the institution of private property does not exist. However, I can not see how the institution of private property could exist for long in an anarcho-capitalist society and what would stop private militias in that case from acting in a similar fashion to African militias.
Spideynw: Democracy for Breakfast:They mind as well be since the government can barely do anything to maintain order. Governments never maintain order.
Governments never maintain order? This is an oversimplification. Can you think of a time, before the establishishment of the modern state, where society was more ordered?
troutndeer:Would this still not be considered anarchy in the sense that there is no state?
It depends on how you define anarchy. I define it as a society that refuses to obey the dictates of a government that has not obtained their consent. Given that the governments in Somalia have not obtained consent of those that they govern, it is not anarchy.
troutndeer:and what would stop private militias in that case from acting in a similar fashion to African militias.
You have to have a civilization that is morally advanced enough to recognize that you cannot just kill people on a whim. Africa, as such, does not qualify. The United States does.
troutndeer:Governments never maintain order? This is an oversimplification. Can you think of a time, before the establishishment of the modern state, where society was more ordered?
Who kills more, governments or criminals? Is order maintained because of the government, or in spite of it?
I cannot quantify an answer to your question, given that "ordered" is so subjective. Not only that, but how do we account for how much technology provides order to society? To conclude that society is "ordered" because of the modern state is impossible.
Spideynw:You have to have a civilization that is morally advanced enough to recognize that you cannot just kill people on a whim. Africa, as such, does not qualify. The United States does.
But in all seriousness, troutndeer, you need to go back and read through the arguments. We've been where you're at before and transcended through it.
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
troutndeer: This is beside the point. Firstly, we are talking about anarchy not the US government. And secondly, on a per capita basis, I think warfare, poverty and theft (ok minus taxation perhaps :) ) caused by militias, within the likes of Somalia and the Congo, are a little more common than in the States. BTW. I realize that Somalia and the Congo are not anarcho capitalist: eg the institution of private property does not exist. However, I can not see how the institution of private property could exist for long in an anarcho-capitalist society and what would stop private militias in that case from acting in a similar fashion to African militias.
The point that others have made is that civil society, culture, etc, is very different in America vs Somalia and its surrounding countries, and still would be so in a state of anarchy. So America vs Somalia is not an apples to apples comparison.
The only fair comparison is to see how Somalia, which lacks a monopolistic gov't, is doing relative to the countries around it and relative to how it was doing under a monopolistic state.
On that basis, Somalia is doing fine: It's situation has improved relative to itself and relative to the countries around it:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880
Or here's the full research report:
http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1861
Please read and let me know what you think.
Spideynw: troutndeer:Would this still not be considered anarchy in the sense that there is no state? It depends on how you define anarchy. I define it as a society that refuses to obey the dictates of a government that has not obtained their consent. Given that the governments in Somalia have not obtained consent of those that they govern, it is not anarchy.
I will agree these types of countries are different to what anarcho-capitalists want. And that these counries are only anarchist in the sense that they have failed-states. However, it does pay to look at what happens when a power vacuum occurs.
Spideynw: troutndeer:and what would stop private militias in that case from acting in a similar fashion to African militias. You have to have a civilization that is morally advanced enough to recognize that you cannot just kill people on a whim. Africa, as such, does not qualify. The United States does.
This is difficult for either of us to debate on because in the modern world countries in the west have never been without states. It is hard to gauge what it would be like if we were stateless tomorrow.
I do agree that culture plays a role in morallity. However, I do think there are bad people in any world who would still get together to cause criminal activities if it were so in their interest, and there were no serious legal implications. Crime is more common in places where there is less chance of prosecution.
Look at politicians, for example. While they justify there careers, most of us see most of what they do to be criminal. Would not these sorts of people still exist in an anarcho capitalist society? Would they, along with others, not seek domination and power through their own private militias?
Spideynw: troutndeer:Governments never maintain order? This is an oversimplification. Can you think of a time, before the establishishment of the modern state, where society was more ordered? Who kills more, governments or criminals? Is order maintained because of the government, or in spite of it?
I do not think this is a very sound argument.
I do agree that governments have killed many more people than criminals. However, much depends on the type of government. Comparing, for instance, the state of Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime is quite different to comparing a relatively "liberal" state, like the New Zealand state, under John Key. In fact, I cant remember the last time the New Zealand government killed one of it's own people. While the New Zealsnd state should be way more limited than it is. It is at least limited enough to not kill people. Correct me if I am wrong but most western societies don't kill their own people on a daily basis. Even in the states I am sure more criminals would kill American citizens than their government does.
Also, if we look at a country, without a state, like the DOC we will notice that they are indeed some of the most violent and unstable in the world.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo#The_impact_of_armed_conflict_on_civilians
Therefore, I am not convinced that a state even more limited than New Zealand's that holds only a monopoly on law and order would be less orderless than an anarcho capitalist society.
NZ does not have a limited state.
WisR: On that basis, Somalia is doing fine: It's situation has improved relative to itself and relative to the countries around it: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880 Or here's the full research report: http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1861 Please read and let me know what you think.
That is a great read. I think just about all countries in Africa are pretty F#cked to be frank and governments play a major role in Africas underdevelopment. It is good to know that Somalia is doing average, at least in relative terms to other African States.
However, I was not defending African governments or any governments for that matter. Most are far too big, all of course, to varying degrees. While some here would not want to call me a libertarian I am at least a liberal in the Hayekian sense.
What I am saying is that I think that having a limited government, that is adequate enough to properly enforce property rights, would work much better than an anarcho-capitalist society. I also think an anarchist state brings with it many dangers and I do not see how such a society, in reality, would preserve much liberty at all.
troutndeer:What I am saying is that I think that having a limited government, that is adequate enough to properly enforce property rights, would work much better than an anarcho-capitalist society.
1. Why?
2. How can a government that violates property rights, properly enforce property rights?
troutndeer:I also think an anarchist state brings with it many dangers and I do not see how such a society, in reality, would preserve much liberty at all.
1. Which dangers?
2. What is it that the state does that cooperative individuals cannot do to preserve liberty?
liberty student: NZ does not have a limited state.
So what you are saying is even an unlimited state can refrain from democide? Anyway, I guess limited has a few meanings, or else my meaning is wrong. I was meaning that the state is limited or constrained, in New Zealand, in the repespect that it is not totalitarian, that is, that their are institutional limits on power.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap