Somalia

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Its also not a claim that I have ever seen from any statist on these boards. It is a total strawman that boro keeps repeating.

[/ QUOTE ]

A strawman it is.

[ QUOTE ]
If he repeats it again without links he should join Nielsio on the bench.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be interested in seeing some of these past comments as well.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
But apparently the statists on this board, including Copernicus, are now happy to concede that law, property rights, contract, and the social order and economic development that arises therefrom can all exist in the absence of governments. So there's nothing more to argue about.

[/ QUOTE ]

=/=

[ QUOTE ]
Any government is supposed to be better than no government.


[/ QUOTE ]

[bobman0330]

Boro,

I don't doubt that many people think anarchy would end badly. But none of the quotes you've given has anything to do with the proposition that any government is better than any anarchy. You could even argue that the implication of those quotes is that any government which fails to protect property rights and public order to a certain minimum level would be worse than useless.

[Borodog]

Dude. The war of all against all, where everyone engages in predation, were it to actually happen, has to be worse than any government, which at its very worst (I hope you'll agree) is of the form of war of a small ruling class against everyone else. It's the logical conclusion of Hobbes's characterization of anarchy, and all those authors basically agreed with Hobbes. A brutal regime that decimates its population would be infinitely better than half the population killing the other half, and then half of those killing the other half, and then half of those . . .

But! I concede the whole line of argument. It's totally irrelevent. The important part is that:

[ QUOTE ]
. . . apparently the statists on this board . . . are now happy to concede that law, property rights, contract, and the social order and economic development that arises therefrom can all exist in the absence of governments. So there's nothing more to argue about.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Borodog]

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.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a strawman. It's the inevitable logical result of the arguments that claim to show that law, property rights, and contract cannot exist in the absence of a coercive monopolist producer and enforcer thereof. <font color="red"> gibberish. It isnt the least bit an inevitable logical result. </font>

But apparently the statists on this board, including Copernicus, are now happy to concede that law, property rights, contract, and the social order and economic development that arises therefrom can all exist in the absence of governments. So there's nothing more to argue about.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red">what there is to argue about is which is the way those ends can be achieved, and theoretical achievcement of those ends under anarchy has never been disputed. What has been disputed is whether those ends can be achieved more effieciently through a state than anarchy, and whether anarchy can even exist in this real world. Anarchy has never existed for more than a brief period. Send a bunch of kids out to play and a "government" in one form or another arises in a matter of hours. Voluntarism is a phantom in the real world and it has never been demontratred to be anything more than that. A logical thinker would be embarassed to roll out Somalia as an example of ACs possibilities, which, even if it wasnt your intent (which I dont believe, you backtracked off it when you couldnt support it any longer), it was clearly the intent of the article. You have demonstrated that youre beyond embarassment, but mises does itself no service with that article. </font>

[Borodog]

lol

[adios]

[ 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]

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
lol

[/ QUOTE ]

QED and back on ignore.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Can you cite someone more modern than the 17th century who thinks this? I certainly don't believe this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believed it until I started reading this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really believed that ANY possible state (think the worst possible government) would be better than ANY possible anarchic society (think the best possible anarchic state)?? I just find that so hard to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, any non-genocidal government.