UnchartedB Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I just want to say that for the most part I am an anarchist, definitely libertarian. I am all for the non initiation of force, peaceful parenting, free market... But I can't think of a way to argue for anarchy when people say: Well but then why don't you leave the country and go live in Somalia? ( I know a there was a recent call in show where a scottish man brought this up). What I guess I am saying is that countries can be seen as land, property that is owned by the state, think of the state as a company that has a board of directors that is always changing. And so, just like inside someone's elses property you have to obey their rules, the same could be said for the state. Don't get me wrong, I really want someone to prove me wrong, but I can't think of anything and it's bothering me.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I just want to say that for the most part I am an anti-mafia, definitely libertarian. I am all for the non initiation of force, peaceful parenting, free market... But I can't think of a way to argue for non-mafia when people say: Well but then why don't you leave the neighborhood and go live in in another neighborhood? What I guess I am saying is that neighborhoods can be seen as land, property that is owned by the mafia. Think of the mafia as a company that has a board of directors that is always changing. And so, just like inside someone's else's property you have to obey their rules, the same could be said for the Mafia. Don't get me wrong, I really want someone to prove me wrong, but I can't think of anything and it's bothering me. 1
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I haven't really figured out how Somalia fits the definition of "anarchy". Haven't warlords and religious leaders taken over?
shirgall Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I haven't really figured out how Somalia fits the definition of "anarchy". Haven't warlords and religious leaders taken over? They have an internationally recognized federal government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Government_of_Somalia
dayna j. Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I don't see how moving from country X to country Y changes anything. Somalia is recognized internationally as a constitutionally-based "Federal Republic." Here is the official website for the Somali government: http://www.somaligov.net/ Tell your friend (or whoever this discussion relates to) that they should drop this guy a line: http://www.somaligov.net/President.html Clearly, no one has told "His Excellency" Hassan Sheikh Mohamud that Somalia is supposed to be an anarchist paradise. I'm sure he will pack up and leave immediately.
Romulox Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I recommend the episode of the Tom Woods Show (appropriately titled "But....Somalia!) where he interviews someone who has done extensive research on the topic of the Somalian anarchy of the 1990's and 2000's. http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-30-but-somalia/ The Somalia argument fails to ask that essential question "Compared to what?". Is comparing a war-torn country that has little to no capital base to a fully industrialized western country appropriate? Obviously not. The guest in this interview compares the standard of living in the stateless Somalia to: - Its neighbors through the 90's and 2000's. - Statist Somalia in the 80's. The general standard of living increases from near the lowest in Africa to higher than average in this time period, and the near the top in some industries such as telecommunications (no restrictions on who can build a cell tower). He also talks about the legal system that has arisen between the various clans in the rural areas; it has quite a few similarities to a private Dispute Resolution Organization model, at least compared to any other existing legal system that I have heard of.
shirgall Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Clearly, no one has told "His Excellency" Hassan Sheikh Mohamud that Somalia is supposed to be an anarchist paradise. I'm sure he will pack up and leave immediately. No one from [al-Islah, a branch of the] Muslim Brotherhood gives up easily... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-19557884
UnchartedB Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 I just want to say that for the most part I am an anti-mafia, definitely libertarian. I am all for the non initiation of force, peaceful parenting, free market... But I can't think of a way to argue for non-mafia when people say: Well but then why don't you leave the neighborhood and go live in in another neighborhood? What I guess I am saying is that neighborhoods can be seen as land, property that is owned by the mafia. Think of the mafia as a company that has a board of directors that is always changing. And so, just like inside someone's else's property you have to obey their rules, the same could be said for the Mafia. Don't get me wrong, I really want someone to prove me wrong, but I can't think of anything and it's bothering me. I don't really understand your point can you elaborate please? I don't see how moving from country X to country Y changes anything. Somalia is recognized internationally as a constitutionally-based "Federal Republic." Here is the official website for the Somali government: http://www.somaligov.net/ Tell your friend (or whoever this discussion relates to) that they should drop this guy a line: http://www.somaligov.net/President.html Clearly, no one has told "His Excellency" Hassan Sheikh Mohamud that Somalia is supposed to be an anarchist paradise. I'm sure he will pack up and leave immediately. Replace Somalia with international waters then. For example let's say in a free market every piece of land is owned. If there is private property everyone then where do you go to? It's their land so they can have their own rules.
Alan C. Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 What I guess I am saying is that countries can be seen as land, property that is owned by the state, think of the state as a company that has a board of directors that is always changing. And so, just like inside someone's elses property you have to obey their rules, the same could be said for the state. What is the point of this?
PedroRomero Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I think the premise is wrong, you cannot equate a country to a privately owned piece of land unless you consider stolen property to be legitimate. Why does any government have a right to my land? I think Stefan makes a great point when he explains this on UPB, and with plenty of examples and analogies like the mafia bit. If you just dig a little bit you will find the fallacy on the Somalia argument. Why do you have to leave instead of the estate?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I don't really understand your point can you elaborate please? Then I don't really understand YOUR point. Sorry. Replace Somalia with international waters then. For example let's say in a free market every piece of land is owned. If there is private property everyone then where do you go to? It's their land so they can have their own rules. You can get your own land and make your own rules.
Pepin Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Them: What about Somalia? Isn't that your perfect libertarian paradise? Me: The place that the government was so bad that it collapsed? Them: Yes. Me: A society with a totalitarian government with no respect for property rights instantly becomes libertarian as soon as it collapses? Them: Well there is no government, right? Me: A region where people have little familiarity with property rights, where the economy is still in a primitive state, where argument is not as valued, where the NAP did not apply will not suddenly become the opposite when the state collapses. These are skills which need to be learned and take many generations to be incorporated into social structures. A state collapsing is very disruptive because people are very very slow to adjust. Most people will continue on like nothing happened, and this includes the thieves and murderers. 1
lbnuke Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 ... I can't think of a way to argue for anarchy when people say: Well but then why don't you leave the country and go live in Somalia? I would start with the curiosity to ask what they mean by Somalia. Wouldn't the fact that the country still has a name, is recognized as a legitimite country be a counter to their own argument? OR Try arguing their point for them. What about Somalia makes it resemble what you think is anarchy?
Omegahero09 Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 I just want to say that for the most part I am an anarchist, definitely libertarian. I am all for the non initiation of force, peaceful parenting, free market... But I can't think of a way to argue for anarchy when people say: Well but then why don't you leave the country and go live in Somalia? ( I know a there was a recent call in show where a scottish man brought this up). What I guess I am saying is that countries can be seen as land, property that is owned by the state, think of the state as a company that has a board of directors that is always changing. And so, just like inside someone's elses property you have to obey their rules, the same could be said for the state. Don't get me wrong, I really want someone to prove me wrong, but I can't think of anything and it's bothering me. Well governments simply put, are not businesses. They violate the NAP. By definition they are separate from businesses. Get the definitions down and from there it's pretty clear. Also the "government = big business" proposition is a horrific smear to everything ethical. Think of it this way, in government systems your labor is taxed, and the fruits of your labor is taxed, so is entry into the market and pretty much at any point value is exchanging hands- the government has their hands in the people's pockets. "Government = big business" is a great counter to anarchistic arguments until you push the principle alllllllll the way down to the labor. Let me break it down. With the help of our good friend: Mr. Statist. Government owns the land. Okay, that's fair, I mean, we can't exactly openly declare it ours without violence being acted on us. Yeah sure, you got it Mr. Statist man, the government owns the land. Government owns therefore the property within it's borders. Yeah sure, if you pull resources from government land, it's theirs sure. And I can't fucking smoke pot openly in the state I'm in, and I can't run my own business without the law flying in six ways from sunday to shut me down. Etc etc. You got it, Mr. Statist- the government owns the shit within it's borders we get it. The individual is nearly powerless to claim certain properties within the borders of the government- unless he cowers and hides like a scavenging rat. I get it. But. Mr. Statist, what about my labor? The value I produce with my own body. Well yes, you have to do your part- your labor is taxed too. So I can't work without the profit of my work being taxed? Yes. So the government owns my body? Oh look, Mr. Statist killed left the room. yaaaay
Recommended Posts