Re: Somalia
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
adios,
I never claimed that anyone on these board made that explicit claim. Shockingly enough, I have discussed anarchy and government in contexts other than 2+2. And if you think that the proposition "any government at all is better than no government at all" is uncommon amongst the general population's opinions about anarchy, I suggest you go take a survey.
elwood and bobman,
I've already conceded the argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
Earlier you wrote in part:
[ QUOTE ]
But the converse has been the universal claim of all statists I have ever discussed this with; that any government, no matter how tyrranical, is better than anarchy (Hobbes's State of Nature), since anarchy always, supposedly, leads inevitably to the perpetual war of all against all; [censored] homini lupus est; a man is men's wolf.
[/ QUOTE ]
No statists on this board?? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
[/ QUOTE ]
To my recollection the specific question of "is *any* form of anarchy better than *any* form of government" has never come up. I could he wrong. I have almost 10,000 posts, and I can't vouch for every post that has been made by every other poster on the subject. If some statist would like to produce a thread where they said something akin to "well certainly some kinds of anarchy would be better than some kinds of government" in a thread in which I was participating, I would be happy to concede my error. Such could very well be the case. I just can't think of any. As you can imagine, it's a pretty hard thing to search on around here (I did try though).
But in any event, I've already conceded the argument. The important part is that the statists around here have conceded that anarchy can indeed be better than government. As I said, I think that has enormous implications for these discussions.
|