Political Theory

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

Harry Felker — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:11:04 GMT

fezwhatley:

if we want a stateless society, why dont a team of private investors and political refugees colonize Somalia

Because of the resource issue, if you want a free society to thrive it should have a decent resource base, and I believe Somalia lacks in this department...

One should consider the possibility that there will be no outside market interaction for a while, so the society may want ot prepare to be self sustaining...

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

Harry Felker — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:04:26 GMT

liberty student:
@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.

It would need to be a place with resources and a decent growing season, or rather very preferential...

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

Ahueytlatoani — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:17:30 GMT

fezwhatley:

GilesStratton:

Remind me again, why should we? In any case Somalia isn't Anarcho Capitalist really it's run by warlords and as far I know a number of groups are all fighting for control of whatever government the UN wishes to create.

Assuming you want to see the United States become stateless, how do you even expect the US to become stateless if you think Somalia can't become a viable stateless society? There's no point in being a libertarian if you constantly are coming up with excuses to never fight for or postpone your ideology.

The main problem is that going to a foriegn country to promote your political ideology is likely to be viewed as an act of agression by the Somali's, as well as the rest of the world.

If we could get the money and resources however, I would be for distributing information on Free Market Anarchy there as well as setting up a DRO or two to sell protection to Somalis while employing almost exclusively Somalis to create jobs and bring order and try to end the warlords. We'd also want to allow Somali subscribers of the DRO a say in how it is run. This would make this a mostly-Somali-run system, and is therefore less likely to be viewed as aggression.

All in all, I think it is an interesting prospect, and, should I somehow be able to recieve the money, would be willing to try it!

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

sthomper — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 08:30:16 GMT

i have wondered about this issue.

one particular area i have thought about is water distirbution.

i know an earlier reference to a mall getting water was made but in my area i believe that the mallgets its water from the city/army corps of engs resivoir via underground pipes that cross many properties owned by many different people.

the city i think has a policy of limited or no wells allowed in yard properties. which to me seems wrong. but i need to check on that. it was something i9 was told some years ago.

if i also remember correctly a nearby govt comm college had its own self contained water treatement station that was privately monitored....fresh water was still provided by the municipality. but i am not completely sure.

i at first wondered how a 'city' or a densly populated area can get water without the state running pipes across various owned properties... say a property owner didnt want pipes running underneath their property.

i thought..can ground water supplies be increased and stored to refill/inject aquifers (and recreation) for drawing by individual wells....i havent been able to find credible info on that topic however.

certainly technology has long existed for the removal and conversion of human wastes into usable composts etc.

does anyone have in weblinks that could better describe a stateless water distribution system with some digestible technical info?

thanks

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

Jon Irenicus — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:46:22 GMT

Don't mind him, that's his M.O.

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

tacoface — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:32:18 GMT

If my wife was raped and did not want to keep the foetus inside her I would have no problem with her having it removed.

I would not kill it.

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

scineram — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:23:34 GMT

You know, to avoid his birth.

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

tacoface — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:01:07 GMT

Looks as if it's stuffed with straw...however...continue.

Why would I want to kill my hypothetical son?

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

scineram — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:57:05 GMT

You believe you have the right to kill your son.

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

tacoface — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:51:33 GMT

I'm not religious.

Go Away.

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

scineram — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:35:37 GMT

You also want to force people to hold your insane religious beliefs.

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

tacoface — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:03:35 GMT

Maxlibert

"Human Life begins at conception, and as such the unborn child is entitled to the same rights as any other individual. The SDK considers abortion only allowable under the circumstance of medical necessity to save the life of the mother."

You claim to believe in freedom yet want to force people to hold your insane religious views.

You make me sick.

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

Ultima — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:26:17 GMT

I just want to add that any system where you stack the deck so unfairly is bound to lead to some unrealistic scenarios. Putting all the roads into the hands of 1 owner... first of all, the govt. would have a terrible fight on their hands if they tried that (remember society is a progression, govt's won't simply not exist from day 1 to day 2), more likely, what would happen is that competition in providers of security, etc... would spring up, and it would be POSSIBLE for ownership of roads to take place. However, again, even within anarcho-cap's framework I think because of prior use, the homeowners have already "homesteaded" the use of the transportation networks that they face, and the people as a collective have homesteaded the unfettered use of the transportation network, so that has to be built into the title deeds and the property framework.

I don't want to ramble on too much, but obviously even anarcho-cap is still going to be a system of legal frameworks and some men telling other men what to do, whether through property deeds or whatever other means... if it was natural to the world then we never would have had governments in the first place. The real trick is setting up the system to be stable, resilient, and redundant (where govt. is a single point of failure)... if anything i view a true anarcho-cap system not as a regression to some "natural" state that we were in before, and that unfortunately is the connotation that the word "anarchy" gives, which makes us think of tribal warlords and the like, but I rather see it as an evolution to the next form of government, which would be, many forms of government structures competing, and the lines between government and private enterprise being blurred, as organisations would perform the functions of both.

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

Ultima — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:16:06 GMT

On the whole roads issue... I've debated this too and had the same dilemma as Danno.

Here are my thoughts:

Firstly, right now the roads mostly belong to the state. For them to be under private ownership, they would first have to be transferred. In a society with strong private property rights and a respect for liberty, it would be argued that all properties adjoining a property would have permanent easement rights to access that property. Furthermore, as part of the title and deed, all roads would be open to all traffic in general, and all sidewalks would be open to all pedestrian traffic.

The property owner would have the right to collect fair use fees for use of the road, but would be obliged to do so in a manner that did not impede the flow of traffic. The property owner would have no right to restrict traffic based on arbitrary concerns, like a hatred of cars. This could all be enforced by simply making it part of the title deed. As adjoining properties would be shareholders of that particular road, they would have an incentive to keep costs down and efficiency high. They would also be obligated to move traffic efficiently since it would be part of the title deed.

As far as new construction is concerned, I'm sure appropriate contracts could be drawn up. People would be reluctant to move into a property where they did not have any permanent easements or a stake in the primary access route. Most people would simply not buy into places where they did not have these protections, and as far as barring someone from accessing a property on the whim of the property owner (let's say Larry, Harry, and Moe decide to bar James from using the road, who also lives on the road), they would not be able to do this because of the concept of permanent easements. If James pays his fair share, there would be no legal way to prevent him from using the road.

These are just some thoughts I had in my head that would work toward resolving some of the problems. Simply put, the problem of roads over roads or of turnpikes next to a home would simply never occur because of property rights, easements, and title deed restrictions. If the state would simply transfer all the roads over to a single person, then obviously there would be a huge imbalance of power, and it would not be very libertarian. But even in this case yes, people could have power over this person by simply disallowing HIM access to their stores, etc... or start a public-relations campaign against him. And remember, there is no monopoly on the use of force. If the people collectively want to disobey this guy for being so unreasonable, they can, property rights or not. They could always violate his rights by force and simply pay the price, if things got to that point. If you don't stack the system that way in the first place, then it probably won't get to that point, not for an entire city.

Easement rights should prevent this situation in terms of people's access to their own property (and as for people that don't live there, in an urban environment there are many routes available to you), but let's say John is an asshole and doesn't want some people that bullied him in elementary school using his bridge which is the only one across the river.. first of all there's an enforcement problem, it would probably cost him a lot to enforce this ban. But let's say he decides to do it... he'll hurt his revenue from the enforcement costs and from the public relations nightmare of being known as an asshole. These people could use a ferry, and if they really needed to cross that bridge they would probably do their utmost to make it very expensive for John's bottom line. Maybe John won't relent, but he hurts himself a lot more than he hurts these few people. If he extends his ban to a larger group such as gays, he may very well go bankrupt. Such a policy would just about always be negative to the owner's bottom line, unless the society as a whole was prejudiced... then, that's a problem of the society itself, and would exist under traditional government as well.

Re: Why are we not moving to somalia?

Individualist — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:49:53 GMT

fezwhatley:

if we want a stateless society, why dont a team of private investors and political refugees colonize Somalia

You'd still have to deal with state governments in Somalia, even though there's no Somali state government. Even though it's true that those governments are weaker than most in the Western world, where would one get the resources to start an anarcho-capitalist society there?

And don't forget the trouble that there is when one tries to radically change a society (French Revolution, War for Southern Independance).