Silkroad Online Forums

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:59 am**

Since the other topic was about a bailout I decided to make one specifically about society without government. Xemnes raises the concern that anarchy is chaos but I disagree; the anarchy we are familiar with is anarchy due to governmental failure. Now a society without government. No modern and successful model? I beg to differ:

Excerpt:

Spoiler!

Simply because we have been taught that the best society is one with government doesn't make it true.

Continued:
http://mises.org/story/2066

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:11 am**

Huh.

You trying to say Somalia is a nice place to live?

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:16 am**

Reise wrote:Huh.

You trying to say Somalia is a nice place to live?

Seriously.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:25 am**

Well I've always said that a government is unnecessary.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:12 am**

Reise wrote:Huh.

You trying to say Somalia is a nice place to live?

he's trying to say we should all be more like somolia...only by increasing our herding industry can our shilling's worth grow on the global market. Viva la Reveoltion!

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:18 am**

Barotix, Somalia?!?

Somalia returned to their traditional clan style government in 1991. It was depicted as "Anarchy" because there was no formal centralized government recognized by other nations.

Somalialand (NW part of Somalia) has a Parliment and holds presidential elections. Your argument that what is good for the economy is good for the people (if I understood you) is flawed and not well represented by this war torn country.

Spoiler!

~Granps

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:22 am**

No government would work, like Communism, but it would take a completely new mindset. Right now in the present social status, it is highly likely that any (large) country without a central government would turn to anarchy.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:24 am**

monarchy is best... rule by a king. best to put W on the throne. will be a utopia.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:43 am**

ThiefzV2 wrote:monarchy is best... rule by a king. best to put W on the throne. will be a utopia.

Better yet, Clinton. Or zombie George Washington.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:07 am**

I am not saying Somalia is a good place to live; I am simply showing an example of a modern country without government. An interesting thing to highlight is that the market is succeeding where government failed; like I typed earlier, history shows us that the market is far superior to the cumbersome useless bureaucracy that is government. Somalia is an interesting case. If there is to be government it's role should be settling property disputes. A government could never begin to comprehend the many interactions an entire society goes through on a day to day basis. To many variables; mathematics just won't cut it.

@Grandpa; Economy is more than money and mathematics. Economics is the study of Human Behavior and History; the study of their interactions and social structure. Their government is to weak to be considered a real force in their every day lives. The people are free because the market is free. The people are the market; the people are the economy. I'm pretty sure we're invading that country, Gramps.

@Argo; before a western nation could ever cast off government the mindset of the people must be changed.

@Xemnas, Government should never be dismantled through revolution. People will grow fearful and attempt to build a stronger government. Government should fail because it has proven to be incompetent, violent, and corrupt; government should not fail because the people used guns to make another government. Mock my example if you wish but it is not the only example of a free society.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:54 pm**

All the herding in the world won't put Somalia close to a 1st world country...if this is your example of the market succeeding where gov't fails its a very poor example. Granps said what i've been saying all along, whats best for the economy isn't always best for the people. But we've been through this before. I see a 3rd world country to broken up to truly rebuild itself, i see a group of people who hate each other so much that they refuse to cooperate for the greater good...but herding is up so +effing 1 to Somalia. Also like granps said they have a form of gov't think of it as the US under the Articles of Confederation....

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:55 pm**

Barotix wrote:@Argo; before a western nation could ever cast off government the mindset of the people must be changed.

Argonaut wrote:No government would work, like Communism, but it would take a completely new mindset.

Noop ...

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:18 pm**

Barotix wrote:I am not saying Somalia is a good place to live; I am simply showing an example of a modern country without government. An interesting thing to highlight is that the market is succeeding where government failed; like I typed earlier, history shows us that the market is far superior to the cumbersome useless bureaucracy that is government. Somalia is an interesting case. If there is to be government it's role should be settling property disputes. A government could never begin to comprehend the many interactions an entire society goes through on a day to day basis. To many variables; mathematics just won't cut it.

@Grandpa; Economy is more than money and mathematics. Economics is the study of Human Behavior and History; the study of their interactions and social structure. Their government is to weak to be considered a real force in their every day lives. The people are free because the market is free. The people are the market; the people are the economy. I'm pretty sure we're invading that country, Gramps.

Have you read the recent news about Somalia, Barotix? I put three articles in my spoiler for your benefit. To say that there is no government is simply incorrect. There are different factions interested in establishing a central government in Somalia so that they can continue international trade but that does not mean the country is lawless or an "Anarchy". Kenya is interested because they don't want the clan and warlord fighting to spread across their shared border - much of which is nomadic areas. Ethiopia has a vested interest because it is land locked and depends on the port facilities in Berbera.

Clan style governments do preside over torts that arise. If somebody were to be found guilty of wrongdoing the clan would bear the punitive damage and justice is shared amongst the group. The 4 major clans of Somalia hold the majority of seats on the Parliment. It's not the same style we are used to, being 'transitional' in nature, but it is a form of government none-the-less. The war-torn country of Somalia has been ravaged by extreme weather and is turning into a desert; the populace is at high risk of food borne disease, malaria, typhoid fever, and parasites. The median age is younger than 18 years old. Again, let me state that citing Somalia as an example isn't the best case that can be made for non-central government.

~Granps

PS. I have two sons whose mother was born in Kenya. I hear more stories about this than we get from the news. It's sad, really.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:16 pm**

<<remember this thread is about government and does not rest solely on Somalia and it's pseudo "government." My other government topic didn't last long because discussion was not sparked, but if I jump straight into a concrete topic (Government VS Anarcho capitalism) I think this topic will last.>>

First off: Let's define a few things. Government, what do you think government is? Anarchy, you think all forms of anarchist societies are stuck in a state of lawlessness? What is economics?

Communism

Could never work.

Grandpa wrote:Somali Government & your articles

Grandpa wrote:There are different factions interested in establishing a central government in Somalia

An unwanted "government" (A Government is a coercive monopoly; the transitional "government" of the Somalis does not fit that description. International trade is done on a clan to clan basis.) backed by America. A "war on terrorism" spearheaded by an American backed Army.[1] Somalia is dieing. Warlord led factions don't fight to form government; they fight to leave government.[2] I am well aware the government is "transitional" but it's presence isn't noticeable. It plays no role in the day to day lives/interactions (the economy) of the Somalis.

What is best for the people is best for the economy. What is best for the cells is best for the body as a whole. If people prove to be most successful and innovative without government then the economy will do the same. Discoveries are not made by governments; they are made by individuals and a force that propels societies forward.

.if this is your example of the market succeeding where gov't fails its a very poor example.

I posted good examples in the other thread; you rejected them. :roll:

[1]
[1]
[2]

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:32 pm**

umm america isn't doing anything in somalia right now, we gave up on somalia more than 10 years ago

and anarchy is lawlessness. The anarchy you want is the one where everyone can do anything they want (with no disorder at the same time), but that will never work

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:34 pm**

Jstar1 wrote:umm america isn't doing anything in somalia right now, we gave up on somalia more than 10 years ago

Fack Mather, menz; okie. I cited it, they are (it's [1] and [1]).

The anarchy you want is the one where everyone can do anything they want (with no disorder at the same time)

False: The anarchy I "want" is one where people respect life, liberty, and property rights (property rights are human rights). A society where people practice the non-initiation of force. Such a society is not impossible. The anarchy you're familiar with is the one that results when Governments collapse: A vacuum where a new government forms. Have you ever asked why a new government forms? No creature is meant to be controlled by another. You cannot simply say; "Anarcho Capitalism is impossible." What can government do that the people can't do better?

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:55 pm**

We wont have Utopia in our society.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:11 pm**

Barotix wrote:Such a society is not impossible.

Neither is winning the lottery.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:26 pm**

Barotix wrote:False: The anarchy I "want" is one where people respect life, liberty, and property rights (property rights are human rights). A society where people practice the non-initiation of force. Such a society is not impossible. The anarchy you're familiar with is the one that results when Governments collapse: A vacuum where a new government forms. Have you ever asked why a new government forms? No creature is meant to be controlled by another. You cannot simply say; "Anarcho Capitalism is impossible." What can government do that the people can't do better?

+1

Anarchy is the most wonderful way of life the human race could live in. But in fact, the society we know today (wich will never change, i believe) is not ready for that superior kind of organization. No laws, no rules.. everyone doin whats better for the whole society. we had never known and will ever know anything like that.

ps.: sorry about da bad english, never had classes lol

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:28 pm**

=/ Lottery is about statistics. Forming a free society is about the mindset of the people. Do they embrace liberty, respect life, and recognize property rights. Our society wants government to do everything for them and believes every man has equal rights yet divides them (men) into smaller categories so they may "properly" issue those rights which, apparently, aren't universal.

World Peace can be found through mutually beneficial trade without initiating force.
No more hunger? Mutually beneficial trade without initiating force.

If you isolate two people that dislike each other (in the same room) they will get along. Men have a habit of finding similarities and building friendships on the similarities.

All a free society requires is responsible hardworking people that respect property (human) rights.

Anarchy is the most wonderful way of life the human race could live in. But in fact, the society we know today (wich will never change, i believe) is not ready for that superior kind of organization. No laws, no rules.. everyone doin whats better for the whole society. we had never known and will ever know anything like that.

It could only change if people are educated; otherwise, it's a dream. Education is man's greatest weapon against slavery. We're really not ready yet.

EDIT: @Blurred,

He's implying that the chances of your "society" happening is really slim, just like the lottery.

It isn't my society. It is a society. I do not claim the idea as mine because it is much older than mine. I acknowledged Reise's post and replied:

It could only change if people are educated; otherwise, it's a dream.

As our society is now (over saturated with entertainment, "thinking" is shunned by the youth, reading is unpopular, some generic boy band is far more popular than free thought.) it would not work. Any attempt to force it will lead to more government. The only way is through education. People avoid economics because the most popular school (coincidentally: the school has the least credibility) includes so much math, equations, and "economic lingo." Economics is nothing more than making predictions based on Human behavior. Best way to educate modern society? Through the internet. The internet is a pathway to liberation.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:34 pm**

Barotix wrote:=/ Lottery is about statistics. Forming a free society is about the mindset of the people. Do they embrace liberty, respect life, and recognize property rights. Our society wants government to do everything for them and believes every man has equal rights yet divides them (men) into smaller categories so they may "properly" issue those rights which, apparently, aren't universal.

World Peace can be found through mutually beneficial trade without initiating force.
No more hunger? Mutually beneficial trade without initiating force.

If you isolate two people that dislike each other (in the same room) they will get along. Men have a habit of finding similarities and building friendships on the similarities.

All a free society requires is responsible hardworking people that respect property (human) rights.

Anarchy is the most wonderful way of life the human race could live in. But in fact, the society we know today (wich will never change, i believe) is not ready for that superior kind of organization. No laws, no rules.. everyone doin whats better for the whole society. we had never known and will ever know anything like that.

It could only change if people are educated; otherwise, it's a dream. Education is man's greatest weapon against slavery. We're really not ready yet.

Hes not trying to relate lottery by statistics. He's implying that the chances of your "society" happening is really slim, just like the lottery.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:42 pm**

Barotix you underestimate man's will to create destruction on himself.

There will always be someone trying to harm others for their own gain. And what does a utopian society do to deal with this? Punish them? Then it's really no better than any other government. And if the people are left with the responsibility, what happens when those doing harm band together and really start causing problems?

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:47 pm**

Reise wrote:Barotix you underestimate man's will to create destruction on himself.

1]There will always be someone trying to harm others for their own gain. 2]And what does a utopian society do to deal with this? 3]Punish them? Then it's really no better than any other government. 4]]And if the people are left with the responsibility, what happens when those doing harm band together and really start causing problems?

I'm glad you raise these concerns.

1,2,3,4]Don't call it a Utopian society. It is a free society, and what gain is to made through the unprovoked initiation of force. Granted, there will be people with malicious intentions but what good would that do? Say someone were to break into your car and steal the radio. If this person is caught (private detectives will track them down) they must pay for the damages and the stolen radio. They will not be thrown into jail. The case will be brought before professional arbiters or "middle-men" that will be presented with the evidence. The loser will have to pay for the expenses of the winner and if the thief loses he must pay for the repair of the car. Such behavior will be avoided because it is not in one's best interest to use force for anything. Now you're probably thinking, "But, government does that!" Does government deal with it in a fair and quick manner? No, professional arbiters will be paid; therefore, they must satisfy their customer. What if a man attempts to rob a bank but the private protection agency that the bank has a contract with apprehends the man? What will the agency do? First he must return the money he stole and pay for the lost time he caused the bank (time is money) and he must pay for the expenses of the agency. A head arbitrator with a board of sub arbitrators will bring forth the contracts and determine the appropriate amount of payment the robber owes the bank. Just enough to compensate for the lost time a agency expenses. What if the robber cannot afford to pay for the agency and lost time? The arbitrators would provide a contract to deal with such behavior. In the meantime the agency may gray-list the thief (i.e.) work with this customer at your own risk. Financially unstable. The nature of such a society, were people take part in contracts and trade agreements because it is in their best interest, will eliminate most crimes, starvation, violence, monopolies, and unemployment. It is a pipe dream unless people are aware of this and embrace it. Once they reach the necessary level of education and awareness they will start to ignore the government. What happens when 1/3 of the population started interacting in ways that are mutually beneficial despite laws laid down by the government? Will they all be thrown in jail? No, what happens when 2/3rds does it? And when the wave hits the whole population? What happens when the army refuses to fight unjustified immoral wars? Will they all be court marshaled? No protest, no rebellion, no violence in the streets; a choice to disobey laws that infringe on civil and economic liberties combined with the proper amount of information will inevitably lead to such a society.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:58 pm**

Reise wrote:Barotix you underestimate man's will to create destruction on himself.

There will always be someone trying to harm others for their own gain. And what does a utopian society do to deal with this? Punish them? Then it's really no better than any other government. And if the people are left with the responsibility, what happens when those doing harm band together and really start causing problems?

that's why society's not ready for anarchy. ppl just try to harm others cuz there's already somebody doin that. thats like writin on a wall cuz "somebody already did". livin in anarchy, the high lvl of education and sense of collectivity would put a finish on violence and this feelin of "harmin others for own gain", as u said.

and, those who dont feel like makin part of the whole, would be free to leave. as i said before: we'll never experience that.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:06 pm**

I can't believe what I just read. You actually think theres a chance to change the mindset of every person in this country so that each one becomes a mother teresa?

I think there would be a better chance of gathering 20 of your followers and relocating to a remote island and create an anarchy there.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:16 pm**

Jstar1 wrote:I can't believe what I just read. You actually think theres a chance to change the mindset of every person in this country so that each one becomes a mother teresa?

I think there would be a better chance of gathering 20 of your followers and relocating to a remote island and create an anarchy there.

I loled: Far from Mother Teresa, buddy. Nothing like Mother Teresa. Such a society survives because people are thinking about their own needs first and in the process must make decisions that are mutually beneficial or else they will lose out and their needs won't be met. I don't think you understand the concept but the society that has been proposed by those before is one of selfishness.

I'll use Spore and Xemnas' post about it: It went something along the lines of not wanting to become allied with groges because other civilizations that groges hate would destroy him.

Now if Xemnas never entered such an entangling alliance he would not be in that pickle, but is he not acting in his own best interest? His thoughts weren't: "OH, I better save so-and-so from so-and-so." It was probably more along the lines of if I help them I alienate myself, but If I help them I risk being destroyed. Help no-one. The groges don't have another enemy and neither do the other civilizations or w/e. Xemnas has no issues either. Win-Win-Win: Mutually beneficial, no consideration of how that would effect bob's civilization; only about how it would affect his civ. Not Mother Teresa; far from mother Teresa's absurd suffering fetish.

Now, let's apply this to real life. Say I have a dispute over land with John. Will our protection agencies duke it out in the street over the land? Of course not since convincing the employees of the protection agency to go kill the other guy's staff would be difficult and absolutely ludicrous. What do you gain from getting the same pay and risking your life in some turf war? You're instantly gray-listed by private insurance companies (work with at your own risk); people who would have purchased your services purchase protection from another agency. It would be lose-lose for the agencies and most likely lose-lose for John and I. So how do we solve the land dispute? We can come to an agreement on our own or we can agree to put in funds to higher a head arbiter that will find terms that are mutually beneficial. The protection agency never gets involved, no-one gets hurt, land never gets harmed, and everyone (including the arbiter) wins.

As for changing the mindset: One person at a time, Jstar1. One person cannot change the world but an Idea can and last I checked

Ron Paul wrote:Freedom is popular

. All one needs to do is educate those around him and those will educate others around them. Enough initiative and the idea spread. At one time this country had an openly racist mindset: Not anymore. Trees do not turn into forest in a day, Jstar1.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:25 pm**

Barotix I can't even reply to your post because of how narrow it is.

You need to look up how such "free" societies end up. The genocides in Africa happen because there is no one to stop the warlords, whose means of survival in a place without government is not to worry about themselves, but to destroy others lives for their own gains.

There is no progress, there is no order.

It's purely anarchy.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:30 pm**

Reise wrote:Barotix I can't even reply to your post because of how narrow it is.

You need to look up how such "free" societies end up. The genocides in Africa happen because there is no one to stop the warlords, whose means of survival in a place without government is not to worry about themselves, but to destroy others lives for their own gains.

There is no progress, there is no order.

It's purely anarchy.

Yeah. Lets say his society succeeds. What happens when a few people gather another few people in attempt to gain power? Influence others by a persuasive speech. They rule, and there goes your society. Since theirs no government i doubt theirs an army.

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:33 pm**

I addressed those problems earlier and you're still thinking about chaotic anarchy that appears when governments fall; you're not thinking of anarchy that appears when people become informed and decide to do what is in their best interest and naturally do what is mutually beneficial.

Lets say his society succeeds

Not my society.

Influence others by a persuasive speech. They rule, and there goes your society. Since theirs no government i doubt theirs an army.

That could only happen in an infant libertarian society where people are not well informed and are easily manipulated. If most understand and respect property rights it will be impossible for such an entity to take root and grow. Persuasive speech doesn't work. Why do you think when a country fights an unjustified war it's media has to work so hard to create propaganda? Why do you think propaganda exist and why do you think the media is constantly half-assing the truth? Because people are intelligent and if they knew the truth they would soon reject it.

Since theirs no government i doubt theirs an army.

If someone threatened your way of life would you sit back and chill? Such a free society will band together to stay free. Besides, most disputes would be between individuals (as they are in our society).

If someone invaded the hood tonight there would be gunshots from Harlem to washington heights. I wouldn't be fighting for white america's dream, I wouldn't be fighting for racist churches in the south my *****, I would be fighting for my people and self-esteem. (way of life)

Posted: **Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:36 pm**

Jstar1 wrote:I can't believe what I just read. You actually think theres a chance to change the mindset of every person in this country so that each one becomes a mother teresa?

Selenne wrote:we'll never experience that.

Silkroad Online Forums

Government.

Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.

Re: Government.