Somalia

[andyfox]

The former government was a disgrace. It's easy to show improvement in statistics when, for example, only 4 people in 1,000 have a radio at the beginning of the period of improvement. In an earlier period when there was a central government, literacy was improved from 5% (in 1969) to 55% (in the mid-1980s), largely because of a government-implemented literacy campaign. A government can do good things and it can do bad things.

[valenzuela]

Im confused, so is there AC on Somalia? Yes or no? If no then why bother posting the article.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Im confused, so is there AC on Somalia? Yes or no? If no then why bother posting the article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because regardless of whether or not Somalia is "AC", the article refutes a number of tired arguments against stateless societies.

Plus, it's interesting.

[Borodog]

Andy,

Did you read the article?

[ QUOTE ]
Another even more comprehensive study published last year by Benjamin Powell of the Independent Institute, concludes: "We find that Somalia's living standards have improved generally … not just in absolute terms, but also relative to other African countries since the collapse of the Somali central government."
<font color="white"> . </font>
Somalia's pastoral economy is now stronger than that of either neighboring Kenya or Ethiopia. It is the largest exporter of livestock of any East African country. Telecommunications have burgeoned in Somalia; a call from a mobile phone is cheaper in Somalia than anywhere else in Africa. A small number of international investors are finding that the level of security of property and contract in Somalia warrants doing business there. Among these companies are Dole, BBC, the courier DHL, British Airways, General Motors, and Coca Cola, which recently opened a large bottling plant in Mogadishu. A 5-star Ambassador Hotel is operating in Hargeisa, and three new universities are fully functional: Amoud University (1997) in Borama, and Mogadishu University (1997), and University of Benadir (2002) in Mogadishu.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides, the mantra is that there should be no improvement at all, regardless of the nature of the previous government. Lack of a central government is a one-way ticket to bloodbath, perpetual war of all against all by people turned mindless thieving killer zombies. No law, no courts, no rights, no production, nothing except theft and rape and murder and perpetual carnage. Claiming that economic improvement in the absence of government is no big deal just because the former government was bad is nothing less than a repudiation of everything that statists claim about anarchy. Any government is supposed to be better than no government.

It appears that no government in Somalia is not just better than the former government there, but also better than the current ones that surround it.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, the mantra is that there should be no improvement at all, regardless of the nature of the previous government. Lack of a central government is a one-way ticket to bloodbath, perpetual war of all against all by people turned mindless thieving killer zombies. No law, no courts, no rights, no production, nothing except theft and rape and murder and perpetual carnage. Claiming that economic improvement in the absence of government is no big deal just because the former government was bad is nothing less than a repudiation of everything that statists claim about anarchy. Any government is supposed to be better than no government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the best example of a strawman argument I've seen on this forum, and that's saying quite a lot.

Who, exactly, has argued that a stateless society will be have worse results than a government REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT??????

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, the mantra is that there should be no improvement at all, regardless of the nature of the previous government. Lack of a central government is a one-way ticket to bloodbath, perpetual war of all against all by people turned mindless thieving killer zombies. No law, no courts, no rights, no production, nothing except theft and rape and murder and perpetual carnage. Claiming that economic improvement in the absence of government is no big deal just because the former government was bad is nothing less than a repudiation of everything that statists claim about anarchy. Any government is supposed to be better than no government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the best example of a strawman argument I've seen on this forum, and that's saying quite a lot.

Who, exactly, has argued that a stateless society will be have worse results than a government REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT??????

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas Hobbes?

So are you claiming that it won't be?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, the mantra is that there should be no improvement at all, regardless of the nature of the previous government. Lack of a central government is a one-way ticket to bloodbath, perpetual war of all against all by people turned mindless thieving killer zombies. No law, no courts, no rights, no production, nothing except theft and rape and murder and perpetual carnage. Claiming that economic improvement in the absence of government is no big deal just because the former government was bad is nothing less than a repudiation of everything that statists claim about anarchy. Any government is supposed to be better than no government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the best example of a strawman argument I've seen on this forum, and that's saying quite a lot.

Who, exactly, has argued that a stateless society will be have worse results than a government REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT??????

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas Hobbes?



[/ QUOTE ]

Hobbes argued that regardless of the form of government the results are better with government than without???? I'd like to see where he said that (I very well might be wrong, but that's not what I remember from the Leviathan.) Hobbes certainly isn't in favor of unrestrained competition, but I don't recall him saying that ANY government is better than no government as you suggest.

[ QUOTE ]
So are you claiming that it won't be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Won't be what? I do not claim, nor have I ever claimed, that the results of no government will be be worse than any possible government. Anyone who would make such a claim would have to have their head examined.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Hobbes argued that regardless of the form of government the results are better with government than without????

[/ QUOTE ]

Didnt you state this wrong? I think you meant to ask "Hobbes argued that regardless of the form of government, only a statless socient and no other government could be an improvement?"

A strawman from Boro? what a surprise.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, the mantra is that there should be no improvement at all, regardless of the nature of the previous government. Lack of a central government is a one-way ticket to bloodbath, perpetual war of all against all by people turned mindless thieving killer zombies. No law, no courts, no rights, no production, nothing except theft and rape and murder and perpetual carnage. Claiming that economic improvement in the absence of government is no big deal just because the former government was bad is nothing less than a repudiation of everything that statists claim about anarchy. Any government is supposed to be better than no government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the best example of a strawman argument I've seen on this forum, and that's saying quite a lot.

Who, exactly, has argued that a stateless society will be have worse results than a government REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT??????

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas Hobbes?



[/ QUOTE ]

Hobbes argued that regardless of the form of government the results are better with government than without???? I'd like to see where he said that (I very well might be wrong, but that's not what I remember from the Leviathan.) Hobbes certainly isn't in favor of unrestrained competition, but I don't recall him saying that ANY government is better than no government as you suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]

De Cive and Leviathan make it as clear as 17th century english can be.

[ QUOTE ]
In Leviathan, Hobbes set out his doctrine of the foundation of societies and legitimate governments. This became one of the first scholarly works on Social contract theory. In the natural condition of mankind, what other philosophers refer to as the state of nature, while some men may be stronger or more intelligent than others, none is so strong and smart as to be beyond a fear of violent death. When threatened with death, man in his natural state cannot help but defend himself in any way possible. Self-defense against violent death is Hobbes' highest human necessity, and rights are borne of necessity. In the state of nature, then, each of us has a right, or license, to everything in the world. Due to the scarcity of things in the world, there is a constant, and rights-based, "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (xiii).
<font color="white"> . </font>
But war is not in man's best interest. According to Hobbes, man has a self-interested and materialistic desire to end war — "the passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them" (xiii, 14). He forms peaceful societies by entering into a social contract. According to Hobbes, society is a population beneath an authority, to whom all individuals in that society covenant just enough of their natural right for the authority to be able to ensure internal peace and a common defense. This sovereign, whether monarchy, aristocracy or democracy (though Hobbes prefers monarchy), should be a Leviathan, an absolute authority. -- wiki

[/ QUOTE ]

He says explicitly that deposing tyrants and despots is bad, that such excesses are never the fault of the government, regardless of its form, but only of particular rulers (he mentions Nero, for example), and the people cannot rightly do anything about the rulers without destabilizing the social contract that keeps chaos at bay.

[ QUOTE ]
How many Kings (and those good men too) hath this one errour, That a Tyrant King might lawfully be put to death, been the slaughter of? How many throats hath this false position cut, That a prince for some causes may by some certain men be deposed? And what blood-shed hath not this erroneous doctrine caused, That Kings are not superiours to, but administrators for the multitude? Lastly, how many rebellions hath this opinion been the cause of which teacheth that the knowledge whether the commands of Kings be just or unjust, belongs to private men, and that before they yeeld obedience, they not only may, but ought to dispute them? - Hobbes, De Cive

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So are you claiming that it won't be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Won't be what? I do not claim, nor have I ever claimed, that the results of no government will be be worse than any possible government. Anyone who would make such a claim would have to have their head examined.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably the largest concession to anarchy I have ever seen from an unabashed statist in this forum. Bravo.

[Copernicus]

3 quotes that have nothing to do with the question, and purporting there was a "concession" when all that was done was to burn his strawman. Obfuscation and arrogance, boro be thy name