if we want a stateless society, why dont a team of private investors and political refugees colonize Somalia
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Stranger:But the point is that I love my country. Don't you?
I've traveled a wee bit. I like my country, but in many ways, it is inferior to others I have been to. I don't feel I particularly owe it anything in the way of allegiance or loyalty.
I could learn to love a free country, regardless of the climate or geography. Being free is more important to me than acknowledging my history and the history of my ancestors with a particular state.
@all, I second the Liberty Colony idea. It's possible that an exodus may at one point be the only option left to us. The world is certainly not getting less statist. Things are moving in the wrong direction, and while choosing to stand and fight might be honourable, it's wise to pick the battles you can win. If you can't beat the state, then change the game. Plus the entrepreneurial opportunities for a Liberty Colony could be tremendous.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
fezwhatley:if we want a stateless society, why dont a team of private investors and political refugees colonize Somalia
For one rude, crude, politically-incorrect reason that rushes to the fore: I have Somali neighbors. I have no desire whatsoever to live in a place in which that is the dominant culture.
If some group actually invests in such a project, can I sell the stock for it short?
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Danno: You are confusing the idea that a stateless society is a society without order. A stateless society can have rules and restraints and hierarchies. That's a popular theory around here, but it (unfortunately) lacks any concrete evidence supporting it. I can sympathize with the goals of the typical anarchist - but, if you get right down to it, Marx's intended goal was not bad, either. The problem is that I don't believe that either system can be workable with actual people.
You are confusing the idea that a stateless society is a society without order. A stateless society can have rules and restraints and hierarchies.
That's a popular theory around here, but it (unfortunately) lacks any concrete evidence supporting it. I can sympathize with the goals of the typical anarchist - but, if you get right down to it, Marx's intended goal was not bad, either. The problem is that I don't believe that either system can be workable with actual people.
Yeah, no evidence at all...
If you're serious about this, compare them to countries of an analogous level of development and wealth. Somalia fares better than other comparable countries.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
John Ess:I don't want to live in the Vatican, either. They are irrational fanatics, too.
Riiiight....
What an irrational hat.
Anonymous Coward: Danno: You are confusing the idea that a stateless society is a society without order. A stateless society can have rules and restraints and hierarchies. That's a popular theory around here, but it (unfortunately) lacks any concrete evidence supporting it. I can sympathize with the goals of the typical anarchist - but, if you get right down to it, Marx's intended goal was not bad, either. The problem is that I don't believe that either system can be workable with actual people. Yeah, no evidence at all... (link to youtube clip deleted)
(link to youtube clip deleted)
As interesting and admirable as pre-Roman Celtic society was, it was not a stateless society. Stateless societies, pretty much by definition, don't have kings. Brehon law, as imposed upon the residents, was remarkably fair and non-intrusive (we think - the evidence is pretty scant), but it was not anarchy - unless you redefine anarchy as having a rigid, inherited class system.
Danno:I'm afraid that you're mistaken. Far more common than a desire for one's personal freedom is the apparently near-universal desire to restrict the neighbor's freedom. Finding another freedom-lover is a treat - people who want everyone else's freedom restricted are legion.
If you don't believe that people generally want freedom then a free society can never be possible. I only need to think of the millions of people who daily risk their lives for a little more opportunity and a chance at a better life to know that people want to be free.
Danno: That's a popular theory around here, but it (unfortunately) lacks any concrete evidence supporting it. I can sympathize with the goals of the typical anarchist - but, if you get right down to it, Marx's intended goal was not bad, either. The problem is that I don't believe that either system can be workable with actual people.
There are lots of examples of people historically living without government. Lots of people in the developing world right now effectively live without government. In fact freedom is the only workable goal for people.
Maxliberty: Lots of people in the developing world right now effectively live without government.
People effectively live without government all across the world, nobody consults the constitution or asks permission from the government when interacting with their neighbours or when in a supermarket.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Danno: For one rude, crude, politically-incorrect reason that rushes to the fore: I have Somali neighbors. I have no desire whatsoever to live in a place in which that is the dominant culture.
Herein lies your dilemma. You are not willing to create freedom yourself nor are you willing to invest in it and yet you imply you are seeking freedom.
GilesStratton: Maxliberty: Lots of people in the developing world right now effectively live without government. People effectively live without government all across the world, nobody consults the constitution or asks permission from the government when interacting with their neighbours or when in a supermarket.
Yes, you see your not quite the slave many would have you believe.
Maxliberty: Danno:I'm afraid that you're mistaken. Far more common than a desire for one's personal freedom is the apparently near-universal desire to restrict the neighbor's freedom. Finding another freedom-lover is a treat - people who want everyone else's freedom restricted are legion. If you don't believe that people generally want freedom then a free society can never be possible. I only need to think of the millions of people who daily risk their lives for a little more opportunity and a chance at a better life to know that people want to be free.
Some people most certainly do. Others prefer the safety of a known, secure slavehood. Most fall somewhere in between. If you look at the exceptional, and use that view to generalize about everyone, you're bound for some unpleasant surprises.
It may be more enjoyable to deal with "how I want it to be", but it's much more effective to deal with "how it is".
That's news to me. Every society I've ever heard of had a ruling class, or rulers - I'd love to research some of the societies that have been ungoverned. Could you name a few?
Maxliberty: Danno:For one rude, crude, politically-incorrect reason that rushes to the fore: I have Somali neighbors. I have no desire whatsoever to live in a place in which that is the dominant culture. Herein lies your dilemma. You are not willing to create freedom yourself nor are you willing to invest in it and yet you imply you are seeking freedom.
Danno:For one rude, crude, politically-incorrect reason that rushes to the fore: I have Somali neighbors. I have no desire whatsoever to live in a place in which that is the dominant culture.
I am totally at a loss as to how you inferred that from what I wrote - there, or anywhere else.
I have invested much of my life in freedom - my own personal freedom, and enlarging options for others. There have been some heavy prices to pay for this, but I've never regretted that decision. I'm willing to invest pretty heavily in furthering freedom, but investing in lost causes does not interest me.
If you want freedom for yourself, I recommend Browne's _How I Found Freedom In an Unfree World_. If you want freedom for everyone, I highly recommend that you focus on the workable.
Because learning another laungage takes time.
Besides what would give anyone the incentive to move to somalia,and how do we know that the investmet would work out in the longterm.
furthermore how would you like it if someone from another country started to homestead your land???
Danno: Anonymous Coward: Danno: You are confusing the idea that a stateless society is a society without order. A stateless society can have rules and restraints and hierarchies. That's a popular theory around here, but it (unfortunately) lacks any concrete evidence supporting it. I can sympathize with the goals of the typical anarchist - but, if you get right down to it, Marx's intended goal was not bad, either. The problem is that I don't believe that either system can be workable with actual people. Yeah, no evidence at all... (link to youtube clip deleted) As interesting and admirable as pre-Roman Celtic society was, it was not a stateless society. Stateless societies, pretty much by definition, don't have kings. Brehon law, as imposed upon the residents, was remarkably fair and non-intrusive (we think - the evidence is pretty scant), but it was not anarchy - unless you redefine anarchy as having a rigid, inherited class system.
Perhaps...
But the chapter from Rothbard was citing the post-Roman Irish society that existed up until the British conquest.
And they also mention the role of kings as being a religious figurehead with no real leglislative power and not being above the law. Sure, they were the war leaders but they couldn't declare war nor force anyone to follow them just as they couldn't just blow off a law suit without suffering the same penalties as everyone else.
You seem to be suffering from the Nirvana Fallacy Syndrome, because no one can cite an example that fits your definition of pure anarchy it can not possibly exist.
I have yet to see humans construct a perfect form of any political system though they manage to get along just fine under real close approximations of 'pure' anarchy every now and again for extended periods of time.
This could be like one of those Onion infographics:
Why are we not moving to Somalia?
26% - Too many Somalians
24% - Threatened with having testicles cut off and stuffed in mouth if returned
18% - Would mean 99% pay cut
12% - Kids prefer Disneyworld to vibrant, downtown Mogadishu
20% - Can't sell house in this lousy market
Byzantine: This could be like one of those Onion infographics: Why are we not moving to Somalia? 26% - Too many Somalians 24% - Threatened with having testicles cut off and stuffed in mouth if returned 18% - Would mean 99% pay cut 12% - Kids prefer Disneyworld to vibrant, downtown Mogadishu 20% - Can't sell house in this lousy market
53% - Would miss posting on Mises.org.
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