|
|
|
|
#2
11-28-2005, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Economic Freedom vs Social justice
[ QUOTE ]
Can you give me an example of a modern society that didn't regulate its economy? [/ QUOTE ] Haven't you heard about this stateless utopia? Unfortunately, some statist tyrants are trying to form a 'government' (read = dictatorship) to put an end to the legitimate business interests of the pirates, who routinely receive upwards of $500k per ship they capture. No one has the legitimate right to tell these buccaneers what to do - the statists are merely trying to supplant the pirate's legitimate business with their own brand of state-run fascist piracy, i.e. TAAAXXEEESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!! How unjust. Blackbeard must be rolling over in his grave. 
|
|
#3
11-28-2005, 03:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Economic Freedom vs Social justice
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Can you give me an example of a modern society that didn't regulate its economy? [/ QUOTE ] Haven't you heard about this stateless utopia? Unfortunately, some statist tyrants are trying to form a 'government' (read = dictatorship) to put an end to the legitimate business interests of the pirates, who routinely receive upwards of $500k per ship they capture. No one has the legitimate right to tell these buccaneers what to do - the statists are merely trying to supplant the pirate's legitimate business with their own brand of state-run fascist piracy, i.e. TAAAXXEEESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!! How unjust. Blackbeard must be rolling over in his grave. [/ QUOTE ] The Somalia strawman has been repeatedly debunked. The main problem with the "Somalia shows that anarchy is bad" argument is that it ignores the huge elephant in the room - the fact that the government that was there before was unable to maintain order to begin with. There are failed states all over the place - but you don't see any anarchists claiming that their existence shows that statism itself is inherently doomed to collapse. Comparisons between Somalia's anarchy and US representitive democracy as a stand-in for comparisons between anarchy and representative democracy are inherently flawed, and anyone who thinks about it for five seconds can see why. Comparisons between Somalia and its neighbors, comparisons where the starting conditions are much more similar, are more interesting (though not completely unflawed). Even the world bank has had to admit that Somalia has made huge leaps forward compared to other similar nations since the government disappeared. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than it was? Undoubtedly. Are there criminals and abusers? Of course. You show your ignorance when you mockingly call somalia a Utopia. No anarchist has ever claimed that anarcho-capitalism is utopian. In case you didn't know, there are (and have been) pirates in other parts of the world, areas with actual, functioning governments. Yet the pirates persist. Wow. You mean that government doesn't magically make pirates instantly disappear?
|
|
#7
11-28-2005, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Economic Freedom vs Social justice
[ QUOTE ]
The Somalia strawman has been repeatedly debunked. [/ QUOTE ] lol, oh? You keep telling yourself that. [ QUOTE ] The main problem with the "Somalia shows that anarchy is bad" argument is that it ignores the huge elephant in the room - the fact that the government that was there before was unable to maintain order to begin with. [/ QUOTE ] Speaking of strawman arguments... [ QUOTE ] There are failed states all over the place - but you don't see any anarchists claiming that their existence shows that statism itself is inherently doomed to collapse. [/ QUOTE ] No -- but certainly, anarachists claim that state failures prove the inherent illegitimacy of the state. [ QUOTE ] Comparisons between Somalia's anarchy and US representitive democracy as a stand-in for comparisons between anarchy and representative democracy are inherently flawed, and anyone who thinks about it for five seconds can see why. [/ QUOTE ] Let's try comparisons between Somalia and...anywhere. Let's try anywhere. I would gladly live anywhere -- North Korea, Iran, the North Pole -- you name it...before I would willingly choose to live in Somalia. [ QUOTE ] Is it better than it was? Undoubtedly. [/ QUOTE ] Evidence? You cite the World Bank -- I'm genuinely curious. [ QUOTE ] You show your ignorance when you mockingly call somalia a Utopia. No anarchist has ever claimed that anarcho-capitalism is utopian. [/ QUOTE ] First, let me concede that you're right; I call Somalia a utopia to mock anarchists who often place it on a pedastal, as if it might be something to aspire to -- so much so that anarachists (as you have done numerous times) try vainly (and so painfully, for the objective reader) to defend Somalia, and the current situation there. Will the anarchist freely admit that anarchy has produced (at the very least, furthered) in Somalia exactly what most predict anarachy will produce (or again, at the very least, exacerbate and aggravate) - that is: chaos, social unrest, ubiquitous violence, warlordism, and general dissary? If you demand 'statists' constantly defend and legitimize the state (a perfectly fair demand), certainly anarachists ought to defend the place they so often rely upon as a paradigm -- that place being Somalia, of course. If you have absolutely no interest in defending Somalia, then I'm compelled to agree with arguments that rely on labeling anarchy as un-workable and impractical, as anarchists can point to little in the way of empirical evidence that would demonstrate the feasibility of anarchy. Give the oppressive statists credit for consistency and honesty -- they certainly act on their beliefs. I don't know any anarchists who have willingly left their comfortable lives in 'oppressive' states to live in Somalia. Hypocrisy rears its ugly head, I guess.
|
|
#8
11-28-2005, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Economic Freedom vs Social justice
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The main problem with the "Somalia shows that anarchy is bad" argument is that it ignores the huge elephant in the room - the fact that the government that was there before was unable to maintain order to begin with. [/ QUOTE ] Speaking of strawman arguments... [/ QUOTE ] What's the strawman? If you're going to claim that anarchy results in chaos, shouldn't you be able to come up with an example other than one which *began* with chaos, a chaos that developed in spite of the existence of a state? Anarchy did not produce the chaos in Somalia - it was there before anarchy was! [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] There are failed states all over the place - but you don't see any anarchists claiming that their existence shows that statism itself is inherently doomed to collapse. [/ QUOTE ] No -- but certainly, anarachists claim that state failures prove the inherent illegitimacy of the state. [/ QUOTE ] How does failure prove illegitimacy? I don't claim that, and I don't know of any reputable anarchists that do. I can think of several successful murderers, and I don't see anyone claiming that they were legitimate because of their success. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Is it better than it was? Undoubtedly. [/ QUOTE ] Evidence? You cite the World Bank -- I'm genuinely curious. [/ QUOTE ] http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/2...va-harford.pdf Quoting from that document: "Somalia has lacked a recognized government since 1991 - an unusually long time. In extremely difficult conditions the private sector has demonstrated its much-vaunted capability to make do. To cope with the absence of the rule of law, private enterprises have been using foreign jurisdictions or institutions to help with some tasks, operating within networks of trust to strengthen property rights, and simplifying transactions until they require neither. Somalia's private sector experience suggests that it may be easier than is commonly thought for basic systems of finance and some infrastructure services to function where government is extremely weak or absent." [ QUOTE ] First, let me concede that you're right; I call Somalia a utopia to mock anarchists who often place it on a pedastal, as if it might be something to aspire to -- so much so that anarachists (as you have done numerous times) try vainly (and so painfully, for the objective reader) to defend Somalia, and the current situation there. [/ QUOTE ] I don't put somalia on a pedestal. It's a hellhole. But, like you point out, there are plenty of statist hellholes, too. Like I said, AC is definitely not utopian. I don't really seek to *defend* Somalia so much as to counter the misinformation about it. [ QUOTE ] Will the anarchist freely admit that anarchy has produced (at the very least, furthered) in Somalia exactly what most predict anarachy will produce (or again, at the very least, exacerbate and aggravate) - that is: chaos, social unrest, ubiquitous violence, warlordism, and general dissary? [/ QUOTE ] No. Chaos, unrest, violence, and disarray do exist there, but anarchy did not produce any of them. The previous government did. Anarchy doesn't further these, either. Warlording is distinctly less profitable without state intervention creating distorted markets (where warlords operate). [ QUOTE ] If you demand 'statists' constantly defend and legitimize the state (a perfectly fair demand), certainly anarachists ought to defend the place they so often rely upon as a paradigm -- that place being Somalia, of course. [/ QUOTE ] Except I've seen nobody rely upon Somalia as a paradigm. You're the one that brought it up, not me. [ QUOTE ] If you have absolutely no interest in defending Somalia, then I'm compelled to agree with arguments that rely on labeling anarchy as un-workable and impractical, as anarchists can point to little in the way of empirical evidence that would demonstrate the feasibility of anarchy. [/ QUOTE ] If Somalia proves that anarchy is unworkable and impractical, than it surely proves even more soundly that statism is also unworkable and impractical, since statism failed there and anarchy has persisted for quite a while. [ QUOTE ] Give the oppressive statists credit for consistency and honesty -- they certainly act on their beliefs. I don't know any anarchists who have willingly left their comfortable lives in 'oppressive' states to live in Somalia. Hypocrisy rears its ugly head, I guess. [/ QUOTE ] Ah, the old "if you don't like it here, move" argument. I guess anyone that disagrees with the status quo should just pack up and leave rather than try to change anything. Nevermind my property rights, somebody else's "right" to tell me what to do is more important. I'll re-post something I posted a while back when the somalia arguement came up: "Anachro-capitalism is not a magic bullet that produces equally-ideal results in every situation. The fact is that anarchy has clearly resulted in a better situation in somalia than they had before under a government. That doesn't mean that one should expect that Somali anarchy will produce a better result than American government - there are plenty of other cultural factors at work as well, and we here have an infrastructure that hasn't been ravaged by civil war (NB another internal conflict in spite of the presence of government), and our infrastructure is much more advanced due to our more advanced economy. That said, Somalia is catching up faster than the other countries with similar conditions in Africa, due to not being weighed down by government (and government is in general VERY bureaucratic in Africa, so the difference is extreme). The point is not that America does better despite government, but how much better America could be doing without it."
|
|
#9
11-28-2005, 06:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Economic Freedom vs Social justice
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The main problem with the "Somalia shows that anarchy is bad" argument is that it ignores the huge elephant in the room - the fact that the government that was there before was unable to maintain order to begin with. [/ QUOTE ] Speaking of strawman arguments... [/ QUOTE ] What's the strawman? If you're going to claim that anarchy results in chaos, shouldn't you be able to come up with an example other than one which *began* with chaos, a chaos that developed in spite of the existence of a state? Anarchy did not produce the chaos in Somalia - it was there before anarchy was! [/ QUOTE ] It's a straw man because no one is defending the former (and now displaced for more than a decade) Somali government -- and yet, when anarchists are called upon to defend the current, wretched condition in Somalia, they wash their hands and say "all the former government's fault" - thereby skirting the real issue, and constructing a veritable straw man in the form of the former Somali government. Perhaps it would have been more accurate had I said anarchists are scape-goating, or trying to present a red herring. At some point, anarchists ought to admit that there's nothing redeeming about the current situation in Somalia -- a situation that anarchy has done little to resolve (and I would argue, has done much to intensify). [ QUOTE ] How does failure prove illegitimacy? I don't claim that, and I don't know of any reputable anarchists that do. I can think of several successful murderers, and I don't see anyone claiming that they were legitimate because of their success. [/ QUOTE ] Is there not a subtle (if not overt) sense among libertarians, and others (perhaps I haven't heard you specifically say this, but I sincerely doubt you disagree -- and I suspect, should I search your previous posts, I could find posts where you express a similar sentiment): that in political systems where government intervention into the private sector was exceedingly high, or where the private sector was non-existent (let's say, for instance, in communists states) -- that the failure of these communist states demonstrate why state intervention into the private sector leads to the inevitable failure of states? [ QUOTE ] http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/2...va-harford.pdf Quoting from that document: "Somalia has lacked a recognized government since 1991 - an unusually long time. In extremely difficult conditions the private sector has demonstrated its much-vaunted capability to make do. To cope with the absence of the rule of law, private enterprises have been using foreign jurisdictions or institutions to help with some tasks, operating within networks of trust to strengthen property rights, and simplifying transactions until they require neither. Somalia's private sector experience suggests that it may be easier than is commonly thought for basic systems of finance and some infrastructure services to function where government is extremely weak or absent." [/ QUOTE ] Having read the document in a cursory manner, and in light of your quote -- nothing in your quote, nor in the link provides evidence (or even claims) that anarchy has produced much of anything in terms of 'success' except in narrow areas (and even those claims come with caveats). What I did read, however, was the following: 1) What is successful in Somalia relies heavily on international intervention -- and on protections provided by the international community (read = other states) -- in fact, many of the Somali 'success stories' noted in the article came with the reminder that these successes were heavily dependent on the protections provided for by other states. For instance, the inflation which destroyed local currencies on two separate occasions was relieved only by relying on American currency; many Somali corporations register internationally, so as to access legal protections; international money transfers to/from Somalia are overseen by other states; airplanes are security-checked in other countries, etc. 2) Some infrastructure and finance systems can operate in a manner that does unexpectedly well when compared with dire predictions and forecasts. Hardly a ringing endorsement. It might sound positive, if we forget that 'better than expected' merely means that expectations were for compete disarray, chaos and failure. 3) Somalia does well in some limited areas of narrow scope when compared with other despotic, autocratic African regimes in the area. Or put differently, horse [censored] smells better than dog [censored] in some regards. Again, hardly a strong endorsement. 4) What stability that exists in Somalia is also highly dependent on de facto local governments, in the form of powerful warlords or other clans. So Somalia has replaced the far-reaching potential of state authority with the somewhat more limited but equally oppressive power of local clans. Color me un-persuaded. Nowhere in the article you posted do the authors claim that Somalia is in a better place now than it was when its government existed, except in a few limited areas. [ QUOTE ] No. Chaos, unrest, violence, and disarray do exist there, but anarchy did not produce any of them. The previous government did. Anarchy doesn't further these, either. Warlording is distinctly less profitable without state intervention creating distorted markets (where warlords operate). [/ QUOTE ] The authors of the article you linked to seem to believe that a benevolent government would do much to resolve some of the long-standing problems Somalia suffers from -- especially in transportation and education. So bad government (as existed in Somalia pre-1991) creates terrible problems, and anarchy (which has now existed in Somalia for almost 15 years) does very little to solve them (and nowhere in the article does it claim anarchy hasn't contributed to these problem, which is my contention) -- and lastly, benevolent government could do much to improve current conditions. Sounds about right to me. And on a side note, I think this article details why (if it wasn't obvious already) anarchy has done much to contribute to the suffering of the Somalis. [ QUOTE ] Ah, the old "if you don't like it here, move" argument. I guess anyone that disagrees with the status quo should just pack up and leave rather than try to change anything. Nevermind my property rights, somebody else's "right" to tell me what to do is more important. [/ QUOTE ] It's not the old "if you don't like it here, move" argument -- it's the old "your continued presence here constitutes a tacit consent for state authority" argument.
|
|
#10
11-28-2005, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Economic Freedom vs Social justice
[ QUOTE ]
It's a straw man because no one is defending the former (and now displaced for more than a decade) Somali government -- and yet, when anarchists are called upon to defend the current, wretched condition in Somalia, they wash their hands and say "all the former government's fault" - thereby skirting the real issue, and constructing a veritable straw man in the form of the former Somali government. Perhaps it would have been more accurate had I said anarchists are scape-goating, or trying to present a red herring. [/ QUOTE ] So you contend that if anachro-capitalism can't make an overnight success, it's a failure? The conditions set up by the previous regime have no effect on ability of the current regime to succeed? Why, then, did they southern US take so long to rebound after the civil war? Once the US was in charge, everything should have been rebuilt overnight, right? [ QUOTE ] Is there not a subtle (if not overt) sense among libertarians, and others (perhaps I haven't heard you specifically say this, but I sincerely doubt you disagree -- and I suspect, should I search your previous posts, I could find posts where you express a similar sentiment): that in political systems where government intervention into the private sector was exceedingly high, or where the private sector was non-existent (let's say, for instance, in communists states) -- that the failure of these communist states demonstrate why state intervention into the private sector leads to the inevitable failure of states? [/ QUOTE ] I don't believe that states, even communist ones, are inherently doomed to failure, at least not in that sense. Some states will fail, and competition with more efficient states can accellerate this process. Of course, over a long enough period, any given state will fail (many will be replaced by other states, though). But again, the failure of any one doesn't *prove* that all others will fail. [ QUOTE ] The authors of the article you linked to seem to believe that a benevolent government would do much to resolve some of the long-standing problems Somalia suffers from -- especially in transportation and education. [/ QUOTE ] Well of course they would - they're bureaucrats, after all. The point wasn't to highlight their recommendations, but their observations. The reality of Somalia, while clearly abysmal, is still quite different from the way it is often portrayed. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Ah, the old "if you don't like it here, move" argument. I guess anyone that disagrees with the status quo should just pack up and leave rather than try to change anything. Nevermind my property rights, somebody else's "right" to tell me what to do is more important. [/ QUOTE ] It's not the old "if you don't like it here, move" argument -- it's the old "your continued presence here constitutes a tacit consent for state authority" argument. [/ QUOTE ] Except it doesn't. Proximity doesn't give thugs legitimacy. Are those that live in neighborhoods where gangs operate consenting to gang activity?
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
