“Hey, Mr Anarchocapitalist, show me a society without government”

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, I think the example of somalia helps the pro-anarchism side. If only in the fact that those who use somalia as a counter example must do so by repeating falsehoods.

Somalia is better off today than it was under government:
http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

The famine in somalia that it is famous for under Barre was due to barre pushing people off of their land and starving them to get food aid, which he then sold and profited from. This scheme worked so well he started starving even more people.

The "transitional government" that these people talk about is a gang of thugs who want to take over, like just about every other government the land by force. It is not moral and it is not helping... it is backed by US and UK funded Ethiopians who have long coveted somali land.

Finally, Obama is a warlord as described by showpan because you don't have a choice of whether you live under obama's rule, and he rules with violence.

That is not the case in somalia. The tribes are voluntary and if you think your tribe is being poorly managed, you can leave it and join another tribe. When tribes have a conflict they "declare war" -- which is ceremonial-- and then go to the muslim judge who adjucates the dispute between them.

Somalia is, strictly speaking, a kitarchy-- rule by judges.

Somalia is also a country that is the victim of massive violence on the part of the USA. The events in blackhawk down occurred in the days following the murder of a hundreds of somali tribal leaders, their wives and their kids, who had gathered to hash out a peace proposal to present to the americans. Those stupid "savages" actually thought that americans were decent people, and didn't think we were going to send cruise missiles into the building killing them all.

Somalia reveals the evil and intolerance of governents toward the very idea of freedom. Somalia isn't invading anyone... its just sitting there, being free. They cannot tolerate it.
 
abolitionist said:
Somalia is better off today than it was under government:
http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf
Click to expand...

Peter Leeson is awesome

Wesker1982 said:
You might find these videos interesting:



According to the logic of pointing to Somalia and saying "see what happens under anarchy!", we could point to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Stalin and use them as examples of why we should oppose government. Both are worse case scenarios of the respective systems (anarchy and statism).

1:10:00 to 1:31:29 on Somalia:


This whole video is very good btw.

Another (and shorter) video on Somalia:



What if we compare Anarchic Ireland (which was civilized) to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union? Stateless Ireland lasted peacefully for over 1,000 years, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had unsustainable economic systems and murdered millions of people. So wouldn't this prove that Anarchy is better than statism?...

Comparing the most successful governments (U.S.A) to the least successful stateless societies (Somalia) doesn't really tell us anything more than comparing anarchic Ireland to government in Nazi Germany...



Medieval Iceland (stateless) lasted for like 300 years, it was also better than Nazi Germany, therefore anarchy>government. (according to the logic used by people who use Somalia as an argument against a stateless society)
http://mises.org/daily/1121

You might also find this thread interesting: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286163-Help-me-understand-anarcho-capitalism...
Click to expand...
 
Let me present one big theoretical foil that is not of my liking or likening: Marxist social theory.

In particular the fetishization of the consumer or commodity fetishism. In class today I was stonewalled by both professor and students alike who accept that there are no "real choices" for consumers. In a degree, I agree; however, I also vehemently disagreed that there is no real choice.

They, in accepting Marx's view that the market desocializes humans, become market nihilists. I don't accept that. I agree with the individualist anarchists who approve of free markets, but not of rent abuse and usury. And libertarians in the modern sense can agree with 19th century socialist libertarian anarchists that the STATE decreases market democracy and influences commodities to corporatism's favor.

So getting back to the OP's question. How can we combat antagonism against stateless markets and societies, accepting the entrenchment of Marxists and Marxist thought in academia who are market nihilists? I also assume that the academic Marxist may give lip service to bad things the state has done, but is never really interested in a "stateless society". They never want that. They want to co-op the state to bring about their vision of justice to PROVE that "real communism" works.

By intellectual Marxists or communists I do not mean the scary type invoked by Beck and Hannity pundits. Instead I mean to call out the intellectually methodologically entrenched types who approach all argument from the theoretical framework or Marx and Engels.

I will be posting soon to take suggestions for thesis topics. If you have ideas on how to defend past or emerging stateless societies, please throw them at me.
 
reardenstone said:
By intellectual Marxists or communists I do not mean the scary type invoked by Beck and Hannity pundits. Instead I mean to call out the intellectually methodologically entrenched types who approach all argument from the theoretical framework or Marx and Engels.

I will be posting soon to take suggestions for thesis topics. If you have ideas on how to defend past or emerging stateless societies, please throw them at me.
Click to expand...

Hey :). The 'intellectuals' are useless by and large.


"Nearly all philosophers today are paid out of taxes. They live off money stolen or confiscated from others. If your livelihood depends on taxes you will likely not oppose the institution of taxation on principal grounds. Of course this is not necessarily the case. Our “consciousness” is not determined by our “Sein,” a la Marx. However, any such opposition is not very likely. Indeed, as most “intellectuals,” philosophers typically suffer from an over-inflated ego. They believe to do work of great importance and resent the fact that “society” does not compensate them accordingly. Hence, if the issue of taxation is not simply ignored by them, philosophers have been at the forefront of coming up with tortured attempts of justifying taxes - of masquerading theft as something “good” - and in particular their own, tax-funded philosopher salaries." - HHH​


Marxism - A materials list. Enjoy ;)
 
I see a lot of repeat names and among them most is Rothbard. We need more than they usual suspects that the "state lover" can decry and strawman. We need more people like Sheldon Richman and maybe some former communists trained in political sciences to go through the faults of the Marx manifesto. If anyone has read the Communist manifesto we should help each other go through it and judge it not with the measuring stick of 20th century libertarian dogma (of which there are some major assumptions) and talk about it on the grounds of feasibility replicating the quality of life we have become accustomed to enjoying so much. I'm not even sure anarchism would have resulted in Fordism and scale production and state capital. Just think about how much statism was present and how much proxy wealth accumulation was present in the 20th century. Yes it created the new serf and half of the communist first stage agenda but it also gave us mass technological production.

Most of us could make houses or crafts, but until more of us can create entire computers and media communications devices in a cottage industry, extraction to shelf ready, then I think there is a lot to consider and debate.

Don't misread me. I am down with different forms of minarchism and anarchism. I even agree with Bakunin, and I agree somewhat with Marx's historical materialism and the origins of class struggles and all of chapter one, but he loses me when he hits his stride in chapter 2 of the manifesto. Once he talks about mandates of property to be confiscated, I am done because then he goes into the realm of force.

The craftsmen federations from the ground up of Bakunin, and the agorism principles are much more sensible and would not take violence, and property "rightfully" earned would still be allowed.



Conza88 said:
Hey :). The 'intellectuals' are useless by and large.


"Nearly all philosophers today are paid out of taxes. They live off money stolen or confiscated from others. If your livelihood depends on taxes you will likely not oppose the institution of taxation on principal grounds. Of course this is not necessarily the case. Our “consciousness” is not determined by our “Sein,” a la Marx. However, any such opposition is not very likely. Indeed, as most “intellectuals,” philosophers typically suffer from an over-inflated ego. They believe to do work of great importance and resent the fact that “society” does not compensate them accordingly. Hence, if the issue of taxation is not simply ignored by them, philosophers have been at the forefront of coming up with tortured attempts of justifying taxes - of masquerading theft as something “good” - and in particular their own, tax-funded philosopher salaries." - HHH​


Marxism - A materials list. Enjoy ;)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You then point to shopping centres that provide their own security, roads and paths.

They point out that that is not so large-scale, and there is still a government overseeing the shopping centre.

You say that there is no government overseeing the people in government, so government itself is in a state of anarchy.

They point out that there is some international government organisation that oversees it.

You point out that no one is overseeing that, so that international government is itself in a state of anarchy.
Click to expand...

So... A Roth-Cap society would be no different from today's.
 
reardenstone said:
I see a lot of repeat names and among them most is Rothbard. We need more than they usual suspects that the "state lover" can decry and strawman. We need more people like Sheldon Richman and maybe some former communists trained in political sciences to go through the faults of the Marx manifesto. If anyone has read the Communist manifesto we should help each other go through it and judge it not with the measuring stick of 20th century libertarian dogma (of which there are some major assumptions) and talk about it on the grounds of feasibility replicating the quality of life we have become accustomed to enjoying so much. I'm not even sure anarchism would have resulted in Fordism and scale production and state capital. Just think about how much statism was present and how much proxy wealth accumulation was present in the 20th century. Yes it created the new serf and half of the communist first stage agenda but it also gave us mass technological production.

Most of us could make houses or crafts, but until more of us can create entire computers and media communications devices in a cottage industry, extraction to shelf ready, then I think there is a lot to consider and debate.

Don't misread me. I am down with different forms of minarchism and anarchism. I even agree with Bakunin, and I agree somewhat with Marx's historical materialism and the origins of class struggles and all of chapter one, but he loses me when he hits his stride in chapter 2 of the manifesto. Once he talks about mandates of property to be confiscated, I am done because then he goes into the realm of force.

The craftsmen federations from the ground up of Bakunin, and the agorism principles are much more sensible and would not take violence, and property "rightfully" earned would still be allowed.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, however I think the question of force is an extremely problematic one. Out of empathy with other human beings (and not some dogmatic universal moral "truth") I think that violence against others should be the absolute last resort or out of the question altogether (depending upon the stakes).

I don't think that confiscating property is necessarily a violent act, even if ethically objectionable. Is it using force to illegally squat on government property?
 
RedStripe said:
I don't think that confiscating property is necessarily a violent act, even if ethically objectionable. Is it using force to illegally squat on government property?
Click to expand...

Government doesn't own any legitimate property. Therefore ipso facto it is better in anyone elses hands, other than the criminals who stole it.
 
Are you poking Casey with your "fuck everybody that doesn't follow my blueprints" antics?
 
Conza88 said:
Government doesn't own any legitimate property. Therefore ipso facto it is better in anyone elses hands, other than the criminals who stole it.
Click to expand...

who gets to define what it legit, criminal, stolen? Let me guess, people who have the most power and money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

PAF
Social Peace through Government Retrenchment
Replies
0
Views
321
PAF
PAF
PAF
Libertarianism vs. Microlibertarianism
Replies
0
Views
324
PAF
PAF
Occam's Banana
US senator says rights come from the government
Replies
4
Views
322
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
Masters of Our Fate, Captains of Our Souls
Replies
0
Views
344
PAF
PAF
PAF
A Powerful Government and a Weak Nation
Replies
1
Views
67
TheTexan
TheTexan
Back
Top