|
|
#51
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? 
|
|
#54
11-28-2005, 03:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Economic Freedom vs Social justice
Sorry everyone. I can't keep up with this thread!
I'll grant that everyone has made excellent points and I definitely have a lot to think about. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much and certainly don't have all (or even some) of the answers. I just wanted to spark some interesting discussion, and I think in that I succeeded. I will keep reading everyone's posts but I can't keep up the responses. Not if I want to continue to be employed. :-) For the record. I consider myself an anarchist. I believe in the potential of the free human spirit. I may not know what that would lead to, or even what form it would take, but I will never trust "leaders" to decide what is best for me or anyone else. This discussion has made me realize that I am not as anti-capitalist as I thought I was. Thank you. However, I am still not convinced of the equivelance of economic freedom and social justice (although my confidence that they are distinct has been somewhat shaken). What about the difference between economic progress and social progress? Any? Is this the same question?
|
|
#55
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.
|
|
#56
11-28-2005, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Economic Freedom vs Social justice
Without economic freedom, you do not have social justice.
|
|
#57
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."
|
|
#58
11-28-2005, 05:02 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 ] So you are saying that the government WAS able to keep control of Somalia before the anarchic period? I don’t see how pvn’s claim is a strawman argument seeing how it is based on fact. [ 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 ] Anarchists (capitalist ones at least) believe in natural law… that humans should be able to be free to do as they wish, so long as it does not do harm to others. Every state in history has imposed on these freedoms. That is the anarchist claim to the illegitimacy of the state. [ QUOTE ] [ 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 ] That is your opinion. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Is it better than it was? Undoubtedly. [/ QUOTE ] Evidence? You cite the World Bank -- I'm genuinely curious. [/ QUOTE ] Can you prove this? "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 ] 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 ] Celtic Ireland is one example. Just because there is limited evidence does not mean it isn’t feasible. Somalia has limited infrastructure (which has nothing to do with the lack of government), I think that is an important point you are missing. [ 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 ] Why can’t I try to change things here? Nothing is worse than the “if you don’t like it then move” argument.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
