Are the Salad Days for Somalia Over?
Fifteen glorious years without a central government in Somalia! It was typically described as a "power vacuum," as if the absence of a taxing, regulating, coercing junta is an unnatural state of affairs, one that cannot and should not last. Well, now this "vacuum" is being filled, with an Islamic militia claiming to be in control of the capital of Mogadishu.
But US officials may rue the day they hoped for a new government in this country. The dictator Mohammed Siad Barre fell in 1991. US troops went in with the idea that they would restore order, but thank goodness they did not. Bill Clinton's idea fell into shambles after 18 soldiers were killed by warlords. That seems like a low number in light of the Iraq disaster, but to Clinton's credit, he pulled out. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (71)
This is an extremely poorly reasoned essay. When the dictatorship fell, the Somalis didn't all get together and say, "I tell you what, gentlemen, centralized government is a menace to liberty. Let us implement a decentralized model as described in the writings of Hans-Herman Hoppe." Rather, Somali did not have a central government because nobody would agree on who got to be the top dog. So the wannabe-top dogs all kept their little fiefdoms and such bourgeoise elements as were present hightailed it out of there.
Now, Lew complains because the enemies of US imperialism have beaten the warlords, the supposed lackeys of US imperialism.
And what are those "salad days" that Lew is referring to? Somalia is a violent, impoverished den of thieves. They were running out of Somalis to rob, and were taking to piracy on the high seas.
Published: June 9, 2006 8:47 AM
Like a leftist, Rockwell finds a way to blame the US for everyone’s problems. Let’s set history straight: Clinton didn’t send troops into Somalia to restore order. He sent them to protect humanitarian food supplies. Bush didn’t finance the “warlords� in order to establish a government but to bribe them to turn over suspects in the bombings in Kenya that they’re protecting. Who are the warlords, anyway? They’re nothing more than the tribal chieftains that libertarians love to hold up as the only legitimate rulers of society. So why has Rockwell turned on them now?
The collapse of the stateless society in Somalia dramatizes one of the weakest points of anarchism: It can’t survive. The “warlords� have proven themselves incapable of fending off a ragtag group of Islamic radicals. Where is the power of anarchism in Somalia to defend itself against armed opponents?
Published: June 9, 2006 9:08 AM
Anarchy just means the lack of a state, not that the inhabitants must necessarily have heavy armament to fight off people funded by superpowers.
If I live with 1000 families in a small island w/o a government, there's anarchy. But that does not mean that if the Spanish armada comes to my island and they kill me or impose a government by force, that anarchy has somehow "failed." It just means that criminals came over and threatened me with death.
Published: June 9, 2006 9:30 AM
Roger M:
"Like a leftist, Rockwell finds a way to blame the US"
He did not blame the US, he blamed the US government. This is a tremendous difference. Sorry Roger, the U.S. government is the greatest single terrorist organization on earth. Who has killed more innocent people, the US government terrorists or private non-state terrorists? Bush ought to be labeled the "butcher of Baghdad" by now.
"Bush didn’t finance the “warlords� in order to establish a government but to bribe them to turn over suspects in the bombings"
Whenever the US military invades a country (Iraq) or supports a regime or faction within a country (Pakistan) it seeks influence and a "permanent" presence in the country unless it is thrown out (Vietnam). Do not fool yourself. The US government covets world domination. No problem is too small for the US government not to get involved.
"The collapse of the stateless society in Somalia dramatizes one of the weakest points of anarchism: It can’t survive" How do you know the Somalian locals will even support this government or obey its edicts? Have you ever heard of the phrase "government in name only."
As far as your perpetual hymn that non-state behavior is impossible, look at the Latin American countries. There are whole segments of society that are outside the control of the central state. Tax evasion, black markets and even some territories exist without central state regulation. Can non-state actors do everything they want? Not everything, but even a statist like yourself who worships having power over his neighbor will agree that services people used to consider were the sole responsibility of the state have been incorporated by non-state actors.
Most people in these countries do not even bother with the official court system in handling disputes, they settle it elsewhere.
Look at the Amish, software developers or commodity producers in the US. These people would rather settle their issues between themselves without using the organs of the state.
And if anarchy cannot happen, why is it that, notwithstanding the US government efforts, we do not have a single central world government? We have anarchy between nations and it is for the most part orderly.
These are successful examples of anarchic behavior. Anarchy is all in how you define it. Your attempt to define Anarchy in the narrowest sense and then to say it cannot and never will work does not prove anything. See, The Rise and Fall of the Nation State by Martin Crevel.
Published: June 9, 2006 10:30 AM
steve--"Do not fool yourself. The US government covets world domination."
Forgive me! I forgot that anarchists are privy to information no one else in the world has. You wouldn't mind sharing your sources, would you?
The "warlords" of Somalia were the tribal chieftains so loved by you guys. Why did you turn on them?
Your examples of stateless societies is interesting. They're all protected by a powerful state.
I don't think anarchism is impossible. In fact, I think it's a great idea if it could survive. But as Somalia demonstrates, it can't. Has any anarchist society survived an attack by an invader?
Published: June 9, 2006 10:49 AM
For historical accuracy, it was President Bush that sent troops into Somalia. He did this shortly after Clinton had defeated him in the 1992 election, but before Clinton was sworn in.
Published: June 9, 2006 10:55 AM
Not really. Those were just trying to rule over others. I really recommend van Notten's "The Law of the Somalis." He lived there for several years and has some interesting insights into the real workings of the stateless areas of Somalia. There are no warlords, just tribal judges, restitution/retribution. It's a near-kritarchy. van Notten clearly says that the warlords are leftover forces (politicians and miliary folks) from previous governments and that still want control.
Published: June 9, 2006 11:15 AM
"...look at the Latin American countries. There are whole segments of society that are outside the control of the central state"
And it´s not so good. They don´t live on peace, it´s quite the contrary. I live on Brazil and here the poor areas of great cities aren´t protected by the police, they are dominated by druglords and other criminals.
The informal sector doesn´t have the oportunity to engage on long run contracts because the institutions of government aren´t trusted. We have inneficient states, but it´s not true that the areas which the state don´t rule are better. It´s quite the contrary. The sector of society which exists some rule of law is much much more developed than the other sector.
Published: June 9, 2006 12:01 PM
Manuel, So are you saying the tribal government couldn't protect itself or its people from the warlords or the Islamic militia? What good were they?
I agree with Renato. The more control a state has over the economy, the larger the black market will be and it will be dominated by organized crime. Russia is a perfect example. I haven't seen anything from anarchists that would protect people from organized crime, armed rebellions or invaders.
Published: June 9, 2006 12:13 PM
"Liberalism seeks to take the sting out of the relationship of the government official to the citizen. In doing so, of course, it does not follow in the footsteps of those romantics who defend the antisocial behavior of the lawbreaker and condemn not only judges and policemen, but also the social order as such. Liberalism neither wishes to nor can deny that the coercive power of the state and the lawful punishment of criminals are institutions that society could never, under any circumstances, do without. However, the liberal believes that the purpose of punishment is solely to rule out, as far as possible, behavior dangerous to society. Punishment should not be vindictive or retaliatory. The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob."
Ludwig von Mises
Published: June 9, 2006 12:35 PM
Great quote, Renato!
For the Christians, you might be interested in this Intro to Austrian Econ on the Acton web site: http://www.acton.org/ActonU/course.php?course=18. The blurb says: A basic introduction to the history and basic premises of the Austrian School of Economics, its differences from other ways of approaching economies, and its degree of compatibility with a Christian anthropology of the person.
Published: June 9, 2006 12:39 PM
Somalia is still stateless and probably evolving towards orderly anarchy. An article that came out just 2 weeks ago described the political situation in the former country as "hyper-complex" (http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=496&language_id=1), with a "dizzying array of clans and sub-clans that ally with and fall out with one another." The author goes on to say that "overlaid on the clan structure are warlords and their business associates who control regions and localities, and also league with and oppose one another depending on their perceived interests at the moment."
As for the Islamic Courts:
``There's not one movement," Suliman Baldo, of the International Crisis Group, said in a telephone interview from New York. ``This is a very loose alliance, driven mainly by business imperatives. There isn't the kind of ideological unity that the Taliban in Afghanistan had in the first place."
From an article about the chairman of the Islamic Courts Union:
(http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=4971)
"Denying receiving financial aid from abroad, Sheikh Sharif said the organization's popularity stems from people's love and appreciation for its actions, given the absence of a central government. "We rely on our limited resources and what ordinary citizens give us. We welcome financial contributions, however small they are, but do not oblige citizens to contribute."
Abdi Samatar, a geography professor at the University of Minnesota who was born in Somalia, said on the June 6 NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,
"What's relatively very refreshing about this group is the fact that they have committed themselves to say that they are not interested in becoming ministers; they are not interested in becoming government, but what they want to do is create the conditions in which the Somali people ... could be able to have determination as to which way they want to go,"
Some have naively suggested that this means that the group will work with the UN-supported so-called Transitional Federal Government and facilitate the TFG's move to Mogadishu, but I see no reason to think that talks between the groups will amount to anything more than the usual practice of buying time and milking the taxpayers of UN member countries.
I think the UN and US are headed for their biggest embarrassment ever.
Published: June 9, 2006 12:41 PM
Check out the following paper from Peter Leeson. His paper contrasts the before and after situation of Somalia and if he's right in his analysis, the takeover by the Islamists of Mogadishu isn't a particularly big deal. There are shifting alliances and coalitions that come together any time there is a threat of centralization of power. Somalia is also a large country, so territories outside the city are still in the control of the other clans. http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
Also, its instructive to compare the qualities of life for average Somalis under anarchy with their neighbors in Sudan, Kenya, etc. that have governments. The arguments in favor of the state diminish substantially with these examples. There are also the wonderful paradises of DR Congo and Zimbabwe to consider.
Published: June 9, 2006 12:53 PM
Well, anarchy can be brutal and Hobesian without a legacy of peaceful traditions (or where they've been eradicated by the state). But that doesn't mean that anarchy wouldn't work at all. Sadly, I see no other possiblity for voluntary society other than in the west. And it will only be a result of infiltrating the cultural centers of gravity (media, academia, etc.) and getting the word out. That's how the socialists did it. That's how we have to.
Published: June 9, 2006 12:55 PM
I actually agree with Anarchist in the Military's comments. But I don't think that, for example, Amish communities can be described as "anarchic." A truly voluntary society is simply not possible unless you want to be a hermit. And with 6.5 billion people and growing, there's not really much "wild" left outside the polar icecaps or the sea.
Published: June 9, 2006 1:02 PM
Reactionary,
I am probably unique here in that I have actually known some Amish people, my father having worked for several of them as a horse trainer, and I can say that theirs is as close to a successful purely voluntary society one is likely to find in the West.
Not only have they famously exacted the right to abstain from both military service and Social Security, their communities are largely governed by consensus, with their elders mostly deferring to individual or group choice in all matters not connected directly to religious principle.
Additionally, they are an excellent example because those communities are surrounded by modern America, making the financial cost of leaving the community an easily overcome obstacle. Yet few choose to leave, historically speaking.
Interestingly,
Published: June 9, 2006 2:55 PM
I have nothing against the Amish, but could they survive if you picked them up and put them down in a place like Somalia without the armed protection that the US provides them?
Published: June 9, 2006 3:29 PM
I hope that the Islamic Courts movement is as benign as Marsh and Peterson's posts suggest. But I've watched a lot of similar Islamic groups come to power since the Iranian revolution and none have been benign so far. The say a lot of good things before they take power, but within a few weeks the rivers run red.
Published: June 9, 2006 3:32 PM
Vince,
How voluntary is the Amish society? If you change your mind about the clothing requirements and decide to wear shorts and tank tops and allow your daughter to wear a bathing suit, are you allowed to stay? Can non-Amish marry into the community? It's my understanding they cannot. Again, anarcho-capitalists need to be honest with themselves. They favor minarchy, not anarchy.
Published: June 9, 2006 3:49 PM
Roger asks;
"I have nothing against the Amish, but could they survive if you picked them up and put them down in a place like Somalia without the armed protection that the US provides them?"
Murray Rothbard wrote an interesting anarchist colonial history of Pennsylvania, which we wrote about at length on LibertyGuys;
http://www.libertyguys.org/articles/detail.asp?ArtID=1238
The Amish, who emigrated to Pennsylvania starting in the 1720s apparently found enough of a remnant of that early anarchism to make it their main home in the US, though they have smaller enclaves in Indiana, Ohio, and New York.
My point is that successful, prosperous de facto anarchism has existed since the time of North American colonization, with and without the "protection" of the US "Defense" department.
Published: June 9, 2006 3:53 PM
Reactionary;
"How voluntary is the Amish society? If you change your mind about the clothing requirements and decide to wear shorts and tank tops and allow your daughter to wear a bathing suit, are you allowed to stay? Can non-Amish marry into the community? It's my understanding they cannot. Again, anarcho-capitalists need to be honest with themselves. They favor minarchy, not anarchy."
Reactionary, I would agree with you except for one fact - anyone who doesn't like those rules is free to leave. This means it is a purely voluntary association, therefore it is by definition anarchic, QED.
If they could be prevented by force from leaving (individuals attempting to 'persuade' family members to stay being a somewhat fuzzy case), then I would agree with you that it is at best minarchy.
But it isn't - in fact, the members of the community that cannot be convinced to follow the rules are most enthusiastically allowed to leave. I do not know how fairly they are compensated for property (if any) they leave behind.
Published: June 9, 2006 3:59 PM
"My point is that successful, prosperous de facto anarchism has existed since the time of North American colonization, with and without the "protection" of the US "Defense" department."
What armed enemies bent on enslaving them have the Amish faced in that history?
Published: June 9, 2006 4:14 PM
Vince,
Here's what the American Heritage Dictionary says:
an·ar·chy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
[New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -arch.]
I don't think the Amish patriarchy qualifies.
You can be evicted from the Amish community for conduct which is purely personal to yourself and poses no harm or threat to others. (Unless you are saying that people can acquire a property interest in a way of life and have a right to their sensibilities.)
Published: June 9, 2006 4:24 PM
One question which I have not seen dealt with here: As of the time of the takeover, was Somalia better off than it was fifteen years ago? We might as well compare oranges to oranges.
Published: June 9, 2006 4:57 PM
I think it's understood that in a stateless, voluntary society, there would be thousands of different enclaves, some like the Amish and some like Greeidge Village of NYC or the Castro District of Frisco. sure, there might be certain peculiar rules everywhere you go, but people will live where they want to. They don't all have to pacifist (and thus defenseless) or partriarchal or communal (yes, a few might even be like socialist Kibbutzim). the point is, if ya don't like what's going on here, you can leave. and I'm sure in most places, you can just opt for no assistance and get to do whatever the hell on your property. At least that is the goal. Selling this will take generations though.
Published: June 9, 2006 5:28 PM
As I understand matters when you come of age in the Amish community you are allowed to leave for a year or two and go experience the "outside" world. Many young men and women do. Should an individual decide to come back, then they are welcomed. Such a person is accepted as knowing the nature of the decision he or she is making. It is interesting that many do in fact return, even after having experienced life outside the Amish world. Perhaps they do not buy in to all the "good" morals and ethics of the widely touted Republican/Democrat liberal conservative life-style....
Sione
Published: June 9, 2006 6:46 PM
Roger M,
"Global leadership" is the new catch phrase. You may want to read over The Project for a New American Century's paper entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)
Here is just one choice quote:
"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional
security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq
provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
Published: June 9, 2006 7:16 PM
A country of anarchic quietude
The Amish have in covenants pursued.
Published: June 9, 2006 7:33 PM
My understanding regarding the Amish is that they own their own property, so if a property owner leaves the community he wouldn't have to physically leave his home. Sure, he'd have to find new friends, & his family would probably shun him, & so forth, but you could say that about almost anyone who undergoes a dramatic lifestyle change. If you think that constitutes being "ruled" then I would have to question your definition of "rule".
As for Somalia, we don't yet know if this new arrangement will last. I certainly wouldn't say "anarchy has failed".
Published: June 9, 2006 8:52 PM
When we talk about anarchy, we should note some points:
1-the great examples of anarchist communities are most aways homogeneous societies, which behaviour of their members are resolved by agreements about a certain view of the world. Check out the technological primitive groups.
2-the government emerges when the components of a given society grow in number, and this happens when we have non-tribal relationship, the multicultural civilization.
3-the liberal case for government is quite simple: the coercitive element of society should only be used to prevent coercive actions. It´s simple when we have small groups, but when we act on a impersonal market, we don´t trust on the other person, we trust on institutions that could be used to enforce an agreement that we make. Note that is differente to think that society is only possible with government. Society grows a thousand of years without government, but on certain stage the conflicts that emerged on a large society force us to adopt government(it´s not a conscious decision, on first place)if we like to gain the benefits of division of labour.
4.the liberal tradition doesn´t endorse ANY government: it endorses only the government which the rules are applyed for all the members of society, including governors.
5."What is to be gained by the creation of a state? Well, consider what a state does. First, it taxes, which means taking from the people and giving to the government, which then gives money to its friends.Second, it regulates, meaning that government tells people to do things they would not otherwise do. Third, it creates a central bank to water down the value of money. Fourth, it builds jails to put people who disobey, including political enemies."
Lew really believe that without government this thing don´t happen? The mafia taxes too, the gangs regulate(on the poorest areas of Brazil the criminals have the power to force the commerce close the doors), the private have the power to create falsification of money, and the private sector kill political enemies too(consider the sindicalists and left politicians that were killed on the past century).
6.A curious case: if Somalia was a slavery society, and we have the opportunity to endorse a state that will finish with this institution, you guys will be favour or not?
Published: June 10, 2006 5:10 AM
Yes. Private actors can be coercive, violent and foul. But they lack the cover of legitimacy and thus can only extend their influence so far. Could somali warlords (pirates not withstanding) extend their rule to Yemen? No, they can't even conquer their neighboring warlords.
Will this new state end slavery? States ARE slavery!
Published: June 10, 2006 7:22 AM
"the liberal tradition doesn´t endorse ANY government: it endorses only the government which the rules are applyed for all the members of society, including governors."
And there, of course, is the rub. Who will rule over the rulers?
Published: June 10, 2006 10:44 AM
"Who will rule over the rulers?"
Quasibill, I don´t have any answer for your question because I don´t believe in Utopia. I should only say that liberal tradition endorses the right to revolt.
Published: June 10, 2006 1:15 PM
Here's an excellent audio clip on what's really going on in Mogadishu. How ironic that it's from PBS!
http://www.markacadeey.com/pbs_abdi_samatar.rm
Published: June 10, 2006 2:55 PM
Here's an old Rothbard essay on Somalia:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard80.html
As usual, Somalia has been interfered with by western powers for quite some time.
Published: June 10, 2006 4:33 PM
"Salad Days"...."Fifteen glorious years".... wow, they've got a per capita GDP of about $600 and economic growth estimated at about 2.5%.....that could only seem like salad days to people who've never experienced a handful of sorghum as a remarkable life-saving luxury.
Meanwhile over half a billion people in Asia have actually escaped from dire poverty while the so called "salad days" of Somalia have been in process.
Any chance we could ask ourselves if our hopes for a world without government are clouding our judgement at all?
Any chance we might actually get to where a massively prosperous mini-state or even a prosperous zero-government lifestyle is possible.... if we quit trying to always be so radical and pretend to demonstrate things we just can't even prove to ourselves yet? Until we actually get far down the road of smaller and smaller government there are lots of issues about anarchy that we just don't know the answers to..... any more than the Wright brothers could have detailed a jet engine or designed a 747. So why the persistent urge to pretend that we have it all figured out and to cling to any semblance of anarchist legitimacy no matter how desperate ?
When you see libertarians of decent heart celebrating a political situation that perpetuates poverty of that severity, you have to ask yourself how in the world we can hope to grow a movement that'll provide substantial libertarianism in our lifetime.
John Mackey, the Whole Foods billionaire, asserts that for our movement to succeed in our lifetime....we must reclaim from the Left our rightful ownership of the words "love" "caring" and "compassion". Obviously, he doesn't see us using them in the same way the Left does...but in a more powerful and more honest way. Check out his article at: http://www.wholefoods.com/blogs/jm/archives/2006/02/winning_the_bat.html
Published: June 10, 2006 4:43 PM
The fact is, anarchy is only a state of civilization. It can be completely separated from the economic institutions that might have existed in that civilization otherwise.
Somalia lacks a tradition of capitalism and has had strong state intervention which gave it corruption and a weak economy. Look at Russia. Take a history of collectivism and suddenly suck away the state and you get the shambles of planned chaos, not anarchy.
Remember, even Western Europe and the US back in the day did not seem pretty and fair. There were the 'dark satanic mills' and laissez-faire was just beginning to blossom. Now look at these nations: rich standards of living, healthy environments, safer than the rest of the world. It was the economics that were the catalyst for our nations to become so strong and safe. The state has only been hampering it.
Since economics is the basis for all peaceful societies and the basis of civilization, Somalia's less-than-perfect state (no pun), even without centralization, seems mightily to me to be the cause of a weak private sector.
Published: June 10, 2006 7:23 PM
And again, who the hell is saying An-Cap is some happy-tree-friends Utopia? It ain't Utopia, haha, I don't even pretend it would be perfect.
But prax logic has shown capitalism has worked better than any other system because it lacked a plan. It was the lack of the state in the economy.
But not entirely; even state control to 'protect' territory still interferes with human action, which is part of economics (same damn thing, really).
Looking at who holds the bigger body bag on their shoulders (maybe the only body bags)... I'm thinkin' the 'statesmen' need yet another garage these days to stuff them away...
Published: June 10, 2006 7:28 PM
"I should only say that liberal tradition endorses the right to revolt."
Hmm - to me, a "right" to revolt, understood in Austrian terms (subjective value) IS anarchy. Otherwise, who gets to judge whether you are rightfully exercising revolt, or are just a mere hooligan, rightfully punished by the state? If it is the state, in any degree, then you have no such "right" - merely wishful thinking.
Published: June 12, 2006 8:21 AM
Just a quick poll for all of the "Give me anarchy or give me death" folks here... (Mr. Rockwell included).
How many of you have actually moved to Somalia? Do you know even a single person who has moved there? Anybody?
After "fifteen glorious years without a central government" you've had plenty of time to get yourselves over there and enjoy the "Salad Days". So why have you not emigrated to the one and only anarchist society on the planet? There's literally nothing to stop you.
You want to talk about a glorious society... back it up with action. Walk the talk, as they say.
The fact that none of you were willing to permanently relocate to Somalia is far more informative about your true beliefs about the quality of life under anarchy than your words are.
You've demonstrated that you would rather live with a state than without. Human action doesn't lie.
Published: June 15, 2006 12:00 PM
Russ,
LOL. I think we went through a similar bit of clever banter on this only a few weeks ago. I think it was anarchists: 9, statists: 7. You folks lost. HA HA!
Published: June 15, 2006 12:43 PM
So Paul,
Is that what passes for intelligent and civil?
Have you ever been to Somalia, or any place in a condition of anarchy? You might be dismayed to find that reality doesn't support your beliefs. Take a walk around and you won't find yourself in a peaceful, prosperous and productive place.
I'm in Northern Tanzania right now, and have visited some of the more remote regions that are so far removed from the reach of the central government, that they are defacto anarchies.
There's nobody to stop you from coming or going, from starting a business or shutting it down, from hiring or firing employees. There is no taxation because nobody is there to register and license your business, or collect taxes. There are no police, no military, no bureacrats, no public schools, no welfare benefits, no gov't roads, not even a post office. For all intents and purposes, apart from a census every few years, people here might live their entire lives never interacting with the government.
And yet, entirely unconstrained by the force of government, the average income remains only $200 US per year. Life expectancy is low, and child mortality high. Disease is rife, and treatment is scarce. There are lots of small shops offering food, services, and a small variety of consumer goods, but there is a complete absence of capital goods. Without secure property rights, nobody is willing to invest in capital. The risk adjusted returns are too low. Without investment, the economy is broken, or at least stalled.
I know one thing for sure... I certainly wouldn't live here, and my sentiments are not unique. The net migration is away from the rural areas toward the cities, where the government operates.
When the inconvenient facts of reality contradict an otherwises well-reasoned theory, an honest thinker will discard the theory rather than declare reality to be incorrect.
Published: June 18, 2006 1:36 AM
Russ,
You think I am being uncivil? I haven’t even yet invited you to move to a socialistic third world country so you can in kind, demonstrate the courage of your conviction that the great and all-seeing tyrannical state is truly where it is at. But why should be waste each other’s time on such a contest when that, and so much more has already been said in some other thread?
The fact is, the more liberty people enjoy, the more prosperous they are. You think Somalia is poor because of Anarchy? I say it is poor because of its history of war and domination by a tyrannical state. You say the west is prosperous because of the wise and steady governance provided by the state? I say this is because its people have been lucky to have a foolish and aggressive state limited to some extent by the people who had some small recognition of the serious danger a completely un-restrained and aggressive state presents to them. Your invitation to go live in a country trying to recover from the devastation inflicted by a history of criminal state intervention, war, and criminal state aggression is simply a foolish joke which wins no points with me. Sorry.
Published: June 18, 2006 2:36 AM
I would say that a lack of government is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for maximum prosperity.
The more I read about Somolia, the more I understand why the so-called anarchy hasn't "worked". From the moment this war-torn nation became free, the US and UN have been fueling violence by attempting to foist a government on its people. Obviously, this level of violence makes it difficult for markets to flourish. Of course, one might say that Somalia should nonetheless be able to fight off the intervening governments, since it is an anarchic state. But again, given the starting point (i.e. a country emerging from decades of war) and the near-immediate interventions by the US and UN, it is no surprise that the markets never flourished. Is this a strike against the workability of anarchy? I don't think so.
Secondly, the Somali people practice what amounts to socialistic redistribution within their clans. These clans have up to and exceeding 1 million members. This brings me to my next point. A *cultural* respect for private property is necessary. This does not exist in Somalia to nearly the same degree as it does in the Western world. Obiously, if we have a group of people who firmly believe in egalitarianism, entrepeneurism will be stifled.
There are certainly other factors, but I think that these two factors are key to explaining why anarchy has not yielded properity in Somalia.
Published: June 18, 2006 2:41 PM
Paul:
"You say the west is prosperous because of the wise and steady governance provided by the state? I say this is because its people have been lucky to have a foolish and aggressive state limited to some extent by the people who had some small recognition of the serious danger a completely un-restrained and aggressive state presents to them."
I'd say that the west is prosperous because it has enjoyed the benefit of a few hundered years of LIMITED government that recognized property rights, enforced civil contracts, prosecuted thieves and incarcerated violent criminals. Let's call these things the "basics"; I consider them essential to a properous society.
I've read lots of theories about how a free-market could provide these basics... yet, over here in the real world, it never seems to materialize.
Somalia had 15 years without a government, and still nobody's providing these basics. Not surprisingly, the people want a government again. (Read the original article link and the comments on the BBCnews website if you don't believe me.)
I admit, governments didn't always deliver the basics well, but they have been done far more effectively than what's being done in Somalia (or rural Tanzania which I've seen first-hand).
I also agree that any attempt by government to expand beyond the basics typically makes people worse off. Unfortunately, western governments in the last century have expanded like a virus, and have depressed living conditions significantly, yet we are still FAR ahead of places that have never had those basics, whether provided by government or the market.
I too recognize the danger of unrestricted government. Don't confuse me with a totalitarian statist, and I won't confuse you with the black-hooded "anarchist" throwing bricks through the window of Starbucks.
Now, I can give you lots of examples where governments have provided the basics and little else, resulting in economic freedom and prosperity.
Please give me one example where prosperity existed without a government providing the basics.
Published: June 20, 2006 5:36 AM
Russ,
I'm not sure if you read my post (right beneath Paul's last post), but I think I explained fairly wll why Somalia is NOT a good example of an anarcho-capitalist society.
As for people still wanting government ...
That does not mean that government is the best solution. It is simply what people are trained to call for. Many people in former socialiast states want their socialist government back. Many people in the USA want a "living wage". What do all these people have in common? They do not really understand the consequences of the things they are asking for. Be careful what you wish for.
Finally, you say, "Please give me one example where prosperity existed without a government providing the basics." The problem with this question is that there aren't really any modern government-free societies from which to choose an example. The most "modern" example I can think of is colonial Pennsylvania, which had many years of government-free prosperity (and a fairly large population also). Rothbard discusses this here: http://www.mises.org/story/1865 .
So basically, it is difficult to find an example where ANYTHING (prosperity or lack thereof) existed without the government providing the basics. Such is the current scope of government -- amost everybody thinks it's necessary. Of course, everybody used to think the world was flat. "How could it possibly be round? Everybody would fall off the bottom end!!" ... makes sense.
Hopefully you'll stick around and we'll win you over. That's how I got here ....
Published: June 20, 2006 12:28 PM
Thanks Fred,
I didn't realize that your prior post was intended for me.
Somalia is only without a central government. It still has plenty of competing factional rulers (aka warlords) directing each of the various clans, so I'd agree with you that it's not a perfect example of anarchy in the theoretical, anarcho-capitalist sense.
However, it's still a practical example of a few million people without a government, and has yielded the exact same sort of factional violence we see in extra-legal street gangs, prison gangs or organized crime. Without legal recourse to settle disputes, people always resort to violence. I'm not sure why anarchists continue to ignore these real-world examples, and prefer to believe in their theoretical fictions.
That's part of the reason that Mr. Rockwell's praise of modern Somalia irked me so much. Only in an academic mind can the absence of a central government automatically result in "salad days". It's abundantly clear that the essay was written by someone who's never set foot near the place to verify his opinions. It was poorly researched to say the least.
However, even though Somalia wasn't really a perfect example of your ideal state of anarchy, it was still the closest system in existence, and should have resulted in an improved standard of living, at least in comparison to the other states in the area (Ethiopia, Eritria, Somaliland, etc...)
The debate here is starting to resemble the argument of modern-day Marxists who contend that the USSR wasn't "really" a good example of Marxism, and that's why it failed to deliver the promised propserity.
Published: June 20, 2006 2:58 PM
Russ,
Your right on the mark with your criticism of anarchism. They'll point out examples where it worked in the past, but those are always small, isolated, homogenous groups of people, and the anarchism didn't last long. Someone gave me the example of ancient Ireland living under anarchy for a thousand years and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But someone ended it, as well. My point is that anarchism would be great until criminals organized themselves, as happened in Somalia, or an external power decided to invade.
Republicanism is very fragile and has been stamped out several times in human history. But Anarchism is even more fragile and dies quickly, mainly because of the free rider problem. Authoritarian government holds the record for longevity and robustness.
So it seems to me that reasonable people would choose republicanism as the lesser of the evils because it provides most of the freedom that anarchists desire with some of the longevity of authoritarianism. But anarchists have a sense of moral superiority, even though their ethical system is a contrived one and not nearly as logically consistent as they believe. They would rather hang on to their perceived moral superiority than survive, much like Islamists who desire a Caliphate or death.
Published: June 20, 2006 3:45 PM
But Roger,
The anarchists are merely saying that a coercive state cannot be justified, and that there is no theoretical reason why free markets cannot provide defense and justice even better than the state can.
From another perspective, what would your response be to someone who justified torture by arguing it was superior to murder? And how do you reply if the advocate of murder tells you it is utopian to argue murder is unjustified when it has always happened in the past and always will happen in the future.
How do you answer the advocate of war and tyranny when he tells you peace and justice are both very fragile and you should not advocate such a delicate piece of insanity?
Here's how you might answer: I am only interested in promoting what can be justified. The promotion of all else is pure deception.
Published: June 20, 2006 4:15 PM
Roger M is a statanist.
Published: June 20, 2006 7:36 PM
Paul:"...there is no theoretical reason why free markets cannot provide defense and justice even better than the state can."
You're absolutely right! There is no theoretical reason why anarchism won't work, but a whole boatloat of practical reasons! If it works so well, why ain't there an anarchist state around anywhere? You just lost your last one to flea bitten pack of ignorant Islamists! If anarchism can't protect its people against the likes of them, how can you tell me it can provide better defense than a state? I want to see it work somewhere, anywhere, before I sign on the dotted line. I wouldn't even buy a vacuum cleaner without seeing it work, let alone a new society.
You're sense of moral superiority doesn't move me. I'll already explained elsewhere why I don't agree with your trumped up system of ethics. Anarchism gives you a tin ear for ethics. The logical outcome of your system is evident to all when anarchists write idiotic statements such as there is no difference between President Bush and Hitler because they're both murderers.
Published: June 20, 2006 9:29 PM
Much, much more goes into determining the success or failure of a society than its political system. Other factors include everything from topography and climate to the average IQ level of the population to the relationship a society maintains with other societies. Economic science provides us with enough well-established insights that we can know with reasonable certainty that state-dominated economies tend to collapse under their own weight in the long run.
But this doesn't mean that a society with little or no government will prosper, either. Nor is social stability and peace dependent entirely on the adoption of one or another particular set of economic arrangements. I reject this kind of narrow determinism and universalism. "Anarchy" can either be Somalia or Bermuda, depending on all sorts of factors.
Published: June 20, 2006 10:26 PM
Roger,
“You're absolutely right! There is no theoretical reason why anarchism won't work, but a whole boatloat of practical reasons!�
Sorry Roger. You have hit upon a classic false dichotomy between theory and practice in praxeology. In praxeology, just as Rothbard pointed out is the case in the study of economics, “all arguments are theoretical� (Rothbard, MES). But because praxeology deals with human action in the real world, “these theoretical arguments are by their very nature “practical� ones as well.� In praxeological questions, what is true theoretically is true in practice. Cool huh? So if there is no theoretical reason why anarchy won’t work, there IS NO reason why anarchy won’t work. Period.
Equally important, if praxeology shows that the state must be or must become despotic, then in practice it will be and must be despotic. And in practice, we never fail to see this confirmed. Funny that, don’t you think?
“If it works so well, why ain't there an anarchist state around anywhere?�
In the days of kings before democracies came about, how powerful would such an argument be, given hind-sight? How would or should fare such logic to refute the possibility of democracies? The fact is, it is important that enough people believe in such a concept, before it can be tried and implemented. Can people ride a bike? Yes they can; but they must believe they can first, and then they must try. No alternate approach to human achievement has yet been devised.
“You just lost your last one to flea bitten pack of ignorant Islamists! If anarchism can't protect its people against the likes of them, how can you tell me it can provide better defense than a state? I want to see it work somewhere, anywhere, before I sign on the dotted line. I wouldn't even buy a vacuum cleaner without seeing it work, let alone a new society.�
My understanding is one gang of Washington backed criminals is fighting another gang of criminals for political power. How far their influence spreads depends on how legitimate people will consider their would-be leaders and how well armed the people are.
“You're sense of moral superiority doesn't move me. I'll already explained elsewhere why I don't agree with your trumped up system of ethics. Anarchism gives you a tin ear for ethics. The logical outcome of your system is evident to all when anarchists write idiotic statements such as there is no difference between President Bush and Hitler because they're both murderers.�
Well of course Bush and Hitler are different. The Nazis were in no position to write history favorable to Hitler. But history will quite likely write Bush up in glowing terms, just like Roosevelt and Lincoln were. That can make all the difference in the world.
Published: June 21, 2006 12:08 AM
Paul:
"In praxeological questions, what is true theoretically is true in practice. Cool huh? So if there is no theoretical reason why anarchy won’t work, there IS NO reason why anarchy won’t work. Period."
It's incredibly difficult to keep from laughing at that one.
Your outright rejection of empirical testing is equivalent to navigating a ship across an ocean by dead reckoning alone... and never fixing your position along the way to verify that you're on track.
In my opinion, this is where some Austrians miss the mark... just because you can logically derive a conclusion from other conclusions, themselves logically derived from earlier conclusions, doesn't mean you shouldn't take a peek at the real world once in a while to see if you're still anywhere near the right track.
Right now, their unwillingness to hold their precious theory up to the harsh light of reality is leading the anarcho-capitalist fringe further and further off the map.
Apologies for switching metaphors here, but a theory that isn't tested is as useless as a toilet that doesn't flush... Neither is good for shit.
Published: June 21, 2006 4:53 AM
An example for you...
Theory: Humans act to achieve their desired ends.
Theory: Government power restricts free human action.
Logical Conclusion: Government interferes with people's ability to achieve their desired ends.
Logical Conclusion: Government reduces human happiness.
Logical Conclusion: Without a government, people will be happy.
Fact: Somalia has been without a government since 1991.
Logical Conclusion: Somalians are happy.
Inconvenient Fact: Somalians are not happy.
Theory: "In praxeological questions, what is true theoretically is true in practice."
Logical Conclusion: Somalians are wrong... They really are happy, but they just don't know it.
Published: June 21, 2006 5:13 AM
You might consider a remedial course in logic. Your "logical conclusions" in re happiness don't follow, therefore your conclusion that there's something wrong with praxeology doesn't follow, either.
Published: June 21, 2006 7:32 AM
Paul:"The Nazis were in no position to write history favorable to Hitler. But history will quite likely write Bush up in glowing terms, just like Roosevelt and Lincoln were. That can make all the difference in the world."
This makes my point about where anarchist thinking leads its lemmings. You're actually trying to defend Hitler. Anarchism causes you to surrender all common sense to system of flawed logic.
Published: June 21, 2006 8:59 AM
Uh... Peter,
I was giving an example of flawed logic. Thank you for noticing.
My point was that it's good epistemological practice to check your beliefs against reality from time to time. If you find that reality differs from your "logical conclusion", you should recheck your logic or look more critically at your theoretical foundation, rather than ignore reality (which the anarchists here seem to be doing).
Anarcho-capitalist theory predicts that without a government, people should be more prosperous. Unfortunately for the theory, Somalia is without a government, but is remains impoverished and miserable. Rather than question the validity of the sacred theory, the folks here are disputing the way the real-world works. "Somalia isn't in a REAL state of anarchy, because of the warlords". "Somalia would be prosperous, but the US and the UN interfered.", "Somalia has a good phone network, so it's not REALLY impoverished and miserable".
As an analogy... Marxist theory predicts that goods should trade at the cost of their raw materials and the labour consumed in their production. Unfortunately goods seldom trade at this price, trading typically at some higher price. Rather than question the validity of the sacred "Labour Theory of Value", Marx decided that the world was wrong, and that evil capitalists were unjustly exploiting workers and capturing the surplus value of their labour.
Marxist theory further predicts that the USSR should have been prosperous. Unfortunately, after 70 years of trying, when it it didn't deliver the promised prosperity, the claims were the same: "The USSR wasn't an example of REAL Marxist practices". "The USSR would have been prosperous but NATO and the UN interfered.", or "The USSR had an advanced military and world-class athletes, so it wasn't REALLY impoverished and miserable"...
Sound familiar?
Published: June 21, 2006 9:30 AM
Russ,
I think part of the flaw in your analysis is that you don't know the facts on the ground over there. Here's a good article on it:
http://www.mises.org/story/2066
Further, there is a world bank report out there somewhere (i read it a while ago, it may still be findable on google) that shows how much better the economy in Somalia is now vs under its previous state, AND how in many ways it is superior to surrounding nation states.
Another problem you have is identifying the current problems as ones caused by anarchy, instead of ones caused by statism. The currently evolving mess there is DIRECTLY caused by U.S. and other outsiders' interference, as these outsiders desire the formation of a nation state for their own purposes. So, the fighting currently going on there can properly be traced back to statism, and not anarchy.
Published: June 21, 2006 10:06 AM
Russ,
“Theory: Humans act to achieve their desired ends.
“Theory: Government power restricts free human action.
“Logical Conclusion: Government interferes with people's ability to achieve their desired ends.
“Logical Conclusion: Government reduces human happiness.
“Logical Conclusion: Without a government, people will be happy.
The last conclusion does not logically follow from the sequence above. I can see the problem some people have with the Austrian approach. Their own grip on logic itself is quite tenuous; therefore they generally lack confidence in its application. They regularly reach illogical conclusions themselves based on faulty reasoning and therefore assume the Austrians must ultimately do so as well and so they tend to want to jettison logical thought altogether in favor of a study of empirical evidence.
The problem is that history and evidence in the realm of human action must always be interpreted under the lens of a correct and previously understood praxeological model. When a person steps on a rock and moves it, only the model of means and ends allows one to recognize if this was a purposeful act in itself, or incidental on the walk down the road to the store. Merely watching events with no model conveys no insight into what men are really trying to do.
If a praxeological model or conclusion is derived deductively, which it must be, only a logically deductive analysis can show it is flawed. No amount of empirical evidence can do this. Therefore, if you wish to show that anarchy is logically flawed and therefore impossible, as Roger already concedes can't be done, then go ahead and show us those flaws. We’re all ears. However pointing to history or current conditions cannot do this.
Published: June 21, 2006 11:06 AM
Roger,
“You're actually trying to defend Hitler. Anarchism causes you to surrender all common sense to system of flawed logic.�
Hmmm. I may be guilty of being a very poor communicator; in fact I must be if you can draw this conclusion from what little I said in respect to Hitler, which was this:
"The Nazis were in no position to write history favorable to Hitler.�
So let me elaborate on my meaning. Hitler was your typical murderous tyrant. I am against murderous tyrants. I am against them regardless of how favorably, or unfavorably history writes them up. That means, just because mainstream history says someone was a great and benevolent dictator, does not mean that I believe he was either great or benevolent. And if mainstream history accurately reflects that a dictator was a mass murderer, I can guess this much: his side lost.
Published: June 21, 2006 11:21 AM
Paul,
I'm not as skeptical about history as you are. Stalin won WWII along with us, but most historians recognize that he murdered far more people than did Hitler. The same is true of Mao.
But I've read posts from anarchists that have essentially stated that there's no difference between Bush and Hitler or Stalin because all were heads of state and all sent people to war and war is murder by another name. All were thieves because all taxation is theft. Are you saying you don't agree with those anarchists?
Published: June 21, 2006 12:39 PM
"I can see the problem some people have with the Austrian approach. Their own grip on logic itself is quite tenuous; therefore they generally lack confidence in its application. They regularly reach illogical conclusions themselves based on faulty reasoning and therefore assume the Austrians must ultimately do so as well and so they tend to want to jettison logical thought altogether in favor of a study of empirical evidence."
Who said I wanted to jettison logic altogether? Do me the favour of not putting words in my mouth.
What I'm saying that you should honestly and objectively check the results of your logical deductions against the real world that they're supposed to describe. What you're doing is assuming that the world looks like what your theory says it should, without ever bothering to take a look.
"If a praxeological model or conclusion is derived deductively, which it must be, only a logically deductive analysis can show it is flawed. No amount of empirical evidence can do this."
Please see what I said above about theories that cannot be tested and toilets that cannot be flushed.
Published: June 21, 2006 1:54 PM
Russ,
I agree with you that checking my theories against reality seems only common sense. But Austrians fought a long war with empericists and threw out the baby with the bath water. They'll never admit the nose of empirical investigation inside the tent, and that weakens a great school of economics.
Published: June 21, 2006 2:05 PM
Faculty Lounge. Mid-Afternoon.
A physics professor is sitting on a sofa, reading. Enter second physicist.
Physicist 2: Hey, how’s it going?
Physicist 1: (Looks up from journal) Not bad, haven’t seen you in a while.
Physicist 2: I’ve been busy developing a new theory.
Physicist 1: Really? Tell me about it!
Physicist 2: Well, I’ve done all the paperwork and I’m convinced that I’ve found a new particle!
Physicist 1: Wow! That’s huge. What kind?
Physicist 2: Well, it’s massive, has no spin, it can only exist outside of an electro-magnetic field, and most remarkably, it should be stable.
Physicist 1: A massive, zero-spin particle, that's STABLE? I don’t believe it… what sort of half-life?
Physicist 2: You should believe it. I can prove it logically, and the half-life should be decades, likely even centuries.
Physicist 1: Well, logical proofs are great, but if you can’t test it and get reproducible results in the lab, your theory isn’t going to be worth much.
Physicist 2: Well, if you want real-world proof, I believe that a team in Africa generated the particle recently. In fact, my theory states that if you assemble the necessary sub-particles in a space free of an electro-magnetic field, the stable particle must come into existence. And the African team assembled the necessary conditions, so you see, the stable particle exists.
Physicist 1: Not exactly, the conditions you specify were there alright, but the resulting particle had negative-spin, and it wasn’t stable.
Physicist 2: What? Are you sure?
Physicist 1: Yes, the results have been public for a long time.
Physicist 2: Oh, I hadn’t seen those. Well, then the conditions must not have been correct.
Physicist 1: Um, yes they were. They assembled the neccessary sub-particles and removed the last remnants of any electromagnetic field.
Physicist 2: Well, there must have been some external factors that interfered. Because my theory can’t be wrong.
Physicist 1: What? Why are you so sure that your theory can’t be wrong.
Physicist 2: Because I derived it logically.
Physicist 1: Right… you mentioned that. Do you actually have any evidence that this particle has ever existed? Ever?
Physicist 2: Well, of course! There was this one time, long ago, in Pennsylvania that the particle was created and documented. I’ve got the research paper right here, (rummages through briefcase, pulls out folder) Here, see for yourself!
Physicist 1: (Reads abstract) Interesting,… they did produce a massive, zero-spin particle. Hmmm… (flips through a few pages) But the half-life wasn’t nearly what you say it should have been. I wouldn’t call it a stable particle. In fact, it looks like it spontaneously self-annihilates.
Physicist 2: Well, that was because of interactions with other particles, but see, that example proves that it exists.
Physicist 1: No, not really, you’ve only shown me a massive, zero-spin, particle that's unstable. That's hardly news. You told me that this particle was stable.
Physicist 2: Regardless, I you want to show me that my theory is logically flawed, and therefore impossible. No amount of empirical evidence can do this; you’re going to have to use another logically deductive analysis.
Physicist 1: What? How did the burden of proof suddenly become mine? You tell me that you’ve proven that there’s a massive, zero-spin, stable particle, that exists only in spaces without electro-magentic fields, and your only supporting argument is that it must exist because it hasn’t been logically disproven, and you won’t look at the physical evidence to the contrary?
Physicist 2: Exactly!
Physicist 1: Right… Well, then… nice talking to you again, I’ve got to get going back to… uh… work. Take care.
Physicist 1 promptly exits lounge.
Published: June 21, 2006 2:09 PM
Russ,
Once you've developed AlternaWorld (TM) where you can run experiments on actual human beings to demonstrate your theories, then turn back the clock and alter a single variable and run it forward again, you can start talking about comparing empirical results in the manner phsyicists (actually, they are a bad example for you to use, high level physics is more often deductive than empirical - better stick to other physical sciences like chemistry) do.
Trying to work with empirical data when you have no ability to control variables when you repeat your experiment violates pretty much every scientific principle out there. You can't pinpoint any single variable change as important - you simply just don't know which one was, or whether it was a synergy of a few, or many.
Empiricism is nice when you can control all the variables in running your experiments. It is nearly useless when you can't. This is true no matter what subject you are talking about. If an honest physicist ran two experiments, changing two variables between the two, he would tell you he can draw no valid conclusions from those experiments. Which stands in stark contrast to economists, who run "experiments" where they change literally millions of variables, and then try to tell you they have acquired empirical knowledge from the "experiments". It's simply a lie.
Published: June 21, 2006 2:43 PM
Roger,
“Stalin won WWII along with us, but most historians recognize that he murdered far more people than did Hitler.�
Very true. It’s hard to sweep double digits millions of murders under the carpet even for leftist historians. But who does the public think of when they think of the great satanic evil doer of all time? Stalin? Mao? Ever wonder why it’s Hitler who claims this spot in the people’s minds. Ever wonder why Roosevelt was so friendly to “Uncle Joe�, the man who murdered more people than Hitler? Does it ever make you go “hmmm� about how the west chooses its allies and why? My take: morality and ethics does not play a role. It's quite the contrary, and this is necessarily so.
“But I've read posts from anarchists that have essentially stated that there's no difference between Bush and Hitler or Stalin because all were heads of state and all sent people to war and war is murder by another name.�
I think their similarities are more brutally striking than their differences, but there is not a doubt that there are some differences. To my knowledge, Bush has not been shown to have directly ordered the assassination or murder of any Americans. I would not be surprised if we find out 9/11 was another Pearl Harbor, but that’s another great discussion for another time. Stalin, though, went out of his way to do just that and murdered millions living in the territory that he terrorized. So I like Bush better than Stalin on that count. But Bush has sent many US soldiers to their certain and unnecessary deaths. Under what category do we put this? Murder? Many call that strong language. But if I shoot a cannon into a busy movie theatre, and people die, what is that? Would murder be strong language? On the other hand, Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilian Iraqi lives (collateral damage). This includes women, children, people just trying to live their lives. Here’s a question: how many American women and children did Stalin or Hitler kill? Chalk one big one up for Bush on the Mr. Nasty side. They say a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But even if one does not subscribe to this philosophy, Bush comes out smelling pretty nasty.
“All were thieves because all taxation is theft. Are you saying you don't agree with those anarchists?�
Of course taxation is theft. You still don’t buy into that?
Published: June 21, 2006 4:51 PM
Russ,
“Physicist 1 promptly exits lounge.�
I’m sincere when I say that was funny. I did laugh hard. And I get where you are coming from. The problem is, as quasibill explained very well, praxeology and the physical sciences must be dealt with differently. Particles and energy don’t act, people do. There are no means-ends motives behind material behavior that we can analyze and reason about and deduce over. Therefore we must and luckily we can perform repeatable experiments to generate general theories about matter. But in human action, it is radically different. We can’t perform the repeatable experiments, but in compensation, we do understand the nature of human action. Based on this we can deduce a great many things about it. This is why the study of human action in ethics and economics can lead us to undeniable and necessarily true conclusions that simply can’t be proven wrong by experimentation, yet are confirmed true in real life, in many instances daily. Therefore, it is true that only logic can show a conclusion derived in praxeology to be incorrect.
Published: June 21, 2006 5:08 PM
But, but, but... I have charts! I have all these charts, Paul! Sure the people of the village are starving, but... the Plan hasn't been tried yet in all the other continents yet, so just you wait! Science doesn't lie!
(just kidding)
Published: June 21, 2006 7:27 PM
Paul:" But Bush has sent many US soldiers to their certain and unnecessary deaths. Under what category do we put this? Murder?"
That's what I thought. Your own words testify to the corrosive effects of anarchism. You no longer can tell the difference between good and evil.
I actually like the philosophy of anarchism and think it would be a good system to live under. But the canyon of logic between that and declaring everyone involved with any kind of government a thief and a murderer is too wide for anarchists to jump, even with their super powers of logic. But that's typical of anarchism, huge leaps in logic, redefining terms to suit their needs, vast over generalizations.
Published: June 21, 2006 9:24 PM
Is Somalia better off now than 10 years ago? How about before the fall of the state? Since war is a drain on capital, especially when that war is in your own backyard, wouldn't you have to factor that into any analysis of its current condition? Isn't that part of the analysis then subject to disagreement?
Published: June 21, 2006 9:50 PM