The Anarchy thread - Page 3

i am not going to derail the thread talking with somebody with very basic understanding of socialism, if you want to discuss anarchy then please do so.

As far as I can tell from the news and stories like this one: http://www.drum-cussac.com/piarcy , Somalia's growth is actually mostly attributed to them making a lot of money from hijacking ships and receiving large ransoms.

Is this not the case? I'm not sure then that Somalia is such a good example of anarchy working since it seems like you're saying having no goverment to control the piracy there is a good thing. Unless perhaps you claim that those two things are not related?

Well, yes this thread is about anarchy, but i see nothing wrong with comparing it to other systems. Capitalism is clearly horrible there is not much to discuss about it
anarchy > capitalism

So thats why i wanted to compare it with socialism

BTW im currently doing studies at university and i have a lot of courses about socialism and i suceed them very well so i don't think my knowledge is as basic as you think.

On March 08 2010 19:59 R_I wrote: As far as I can tell from the news and stories like this one: http://www.drum-cussac.com/piarcy , Somalia's growth is actually mostly attributed to them making a lot of money from hijacking ships and receiving large ransoms. Is this not the case? I'm not sure then that Somalia is such a good example of anarchy working since it seems like you're saying having no goverment to control the piracy there is a good thing. Unless perhaps you claim that those two things are not related?

Yes i claim they are not related, Somalia has a established government now since 2006, the growth has stopped yet the piracy incidents kept increasing.

Plus i dont see the co-relation with wealth acquired by criminals and the overall betterment of a country, especially in areas like education and others, if they were related, then Mexico or Colombia would be very rich because we have many drug dealers who make billions a year.

On March 08 2010 20:26 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 08 2010 19:59 R_I wrote: As far as I can tell from the news and stories like this one: http://www.drum-cussac.com/piarcy , Somalia's growth is actually mostly attributed to them making a lot of money from hijacking ships and receiving large ransoms. Is this not the case? I'm not sure then that Somalia is such a good example of anarchy working since it seems like you're saying having no goverment to control the piracy there is a good thing. Unless perhaps you claim that those two things are not related? Yes i claim they are not related, Somalia has a established government now since 2006, the growth has stopped yet the piracy incidents kept increasing. Plus i dont see the co-relation with wealth acquired by criminals and the overall betterment of a country, especially in areas like education and others, if they were related, then Mexico or Colombia would be very rich because we have many drug dealers who make billions a year.

Oh I see, I looked up the article and sure enough there was growth recorded during the years when Somalia had no government.

As for positive effects of the current piracy in Somalia, I googled and found this article:
http://backinbeirut.blogspot.com/2009...a-piracy-ransom-and-wads-of-cash.html

I had also read this article over here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10619829

What I'm curious to know is, if there was still no government in Somalia now with the piracy going on, would this still be a working example of anarchy? Working for who exactly? Would it perhaps be "better" to have an effective government? By effective I mean one that could actually do their job of governing/controlling the piracy.

Never mind guys the US is about to stop all this "growth".


"US-Backed Somali Troops Prepare Major Offensive

In news from Africa, the New York Times reports the US is helping the Somali government prepare a major offensive to take the capital of Mogadishu from Islamist militants. Over the past six months, Somalia has farmed out young men to Djibouti, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Sudan for military instruction, and most are now back in the capital, waiting to fight. So far, most of the US military assistance to the Somali government has been focused on training, but a US official told the Times he expects US covert forces will get involved in the offensive. The official said, “What you’re likely to see is air strikes and Special Ops moving in, hitting and getting out."

On March 09 2010 01:50 spets1 wrote: Never mind guys the US is about to stop all this "growth". "US-Backed Somali Troops Prepare Major Offensive In news from Africa, the New York Times reports the US is helping the Somali government prepare a major offensive to take the capital of Mogadishu from Islamist militants. Over the past six months, Somalia has farmed out young men to Djibouti, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Sudan for military instruction, and most are now back in the capital, waiting to fight. So far, most of the US military assistance to the Somali government has been focused on training, but a US official told the Times he expects US covert forces will get involved in the offensive. The official said, “What you’re likely to see is air strikes and Special Ops moving in, hitting and getting out."

So the US is about to overthrow a government in a country in another continent that doesnt fit its interests once again.. sigh will this ever stop?

On March 08 2010 20:50 R_I wrote: Show nested quote + On March 08 2010 20:26 Baal wrote:   On March 08 2010 19:59 R_I wrote: As far as I can tell from the news and stories like this one: http://www.drum-cussac.com/piarcy , Somalia's growth is actually mostly attributed to them making a lot of money from hijacking ships and receiving large ransoms. Is this not the case? I'm not sure then that Somalia is such a good example of anarchy working since it seems like you're saying having no goverment to control the piracy there is a good thing. Unless perhaps you claim that those two things are not related? Yes i claim they are not related, Somalia has a established government now since 2006, the growth has stopped yet the piracy incidents kept increasing. Plus i dont see the co-relation with wealth acquired by criminals and the overall betterment of a country, especially in areas like education and others, if they were related, then Mexico or Colombia would be very rich because we have many drug dealers who make billions a year. Oh I see, I looked up the article and sure enough there was growth recorded during the years when Somalia had no government. As for positive effects of the current piracy in Somalia, I googled and found this article: http://backinbeirut.blogspot.com/2009...a-piracy-ransom-and-wads-of-cash.html I had also read this article over here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10619829 What I'm curious to know is, if there was still no government in Somalia now with the piracy going on, would this still be a working example of anarchy? Working for who exactly? Would it perhaps be "better" to have an effective government? By effective I mean one that could actually do their job of governing/controlling the piracy.

Yes if Somalia showed growth then it was working, for whom? for their people, everybody had better living standards in general.

And its silly to say that a working effective government would be better because such thing cannot exist in a country like Somalia, at least not in the next 100 years.

Governments dont form from air, governments are reflections of the society they govern, a reflection even darker than the society itself. so there wont be a working government in somalia, unless you kill all its citizens and replace it with scandinavians, then we can discuss a proper government and a proper anarchy.

On March 09 2010 02:19 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 08 2010 20:50 R_I wrote:   On March 08 2010 20:26 Baal wrote:   On March 08 2010 19:59 R_I wrote: As far as I can tell from the news and stories like this one: http://www.drum-cussac.com/piarcy , Somalia's growth is actually mostly attributed to them making a lot of money from hijacking ships and receiving large ransoms. Is this not the case? I'm not sure then that Somalia is such a good example of anarchy working since it seems like you're saying having no goverment to control the piracy there is a good thing. Unless perhaps you claim that those two things are not related? Yes i claim they are not related, Somalia has a established government now since 2006, the growth has stopped yet the piracy incidents kept increasing. Plus i dont see the co-relation with wealth acquired by criminals and the overall betterment of a country, especially in areas like education and others, if they were related, then Mexico or Colombia would be very rich because we have many drug dealers who make billions a year. Oh I see, I looked up the article and sure enough there was growth recorded during the years when Somalia had no government. As for positive effects of the current piracy in Somalia, I googled and found this article: http://backinbeirut.blogspot.com/2009...a-piracy-ransom-and-wads-of-cash.html I had also read this article over here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10619829 What I'm curious to know is, if there was still no government in Somalia now with the piracy going on, would this still be a working example of anarchy? Working for who exactly? Would it perhaps be "better" to have an effective government? By effective I mean one that could actually do their job of governing/controlling the piracy. Yes if Somalia showed growth then it was working, for whom? for their people, everybody had better living standards in general. And its silly to say that a working effective government would be better because such thing cannot exist in a country like Somalia, at least not in the next 100 years. Governments dont form from air, governments are reflections of the society they govern, a reflection even darker than the society itself. so there wont be a working government in somalia, unless you kill all its citizens and replace it with scandinavians, then we can discuss a proper government and a proper anarchy.

Wait, I was asking if anarchy would be considered to be working if people in Somalia were getting better living standards but from the proceeds of crime and suffering of hostages etc. Are you saying that it would be really be considered a working anarchy?

I think the piracy that is happening is an example of the faction thing that other people were talking about. How would Somalia in anarchy with piracy compare with Somalia with a government enforcing anti piracy and reducing it, albeit meaning that their citizens won't have as much money? Is the welfare of that particular place all that matters, at the expense of others?

It's farfetched, but another country could invade somalia and install a government that has the military might to enforce anti piracy. Then other nations might suffer a little less while Somalia might have less growth, but I don't really know how to do a fair comparison in terms of welfare of a place and the means to increase it. And I don't think the new government would have to kill everyone...

In a vacuum with perfectly nice people, sure anarchy would work but fact is we live in a world with a lot of different types of people. I don't really think there can be a true state of lawlessness because others will band together to enforce their will in terms of removing the absolute liberties from certain factions that are acting up, so to speak.

That was a bit of a ramble, and I'd like to know what you think about whether the ends of better living conditions for citizens in a certain place justify the means even if they are illegal and immoral.

Also to check my understanding of anarchy, if someone decided they wanted to kill another person then they are free to do so right if they can get away with it? And no one can really arrest them and put them through a trial and inprisonment because no one can enforce any authority? This is an extreme example but I think it's actually in accordance with the definition of anarchy (according to wikipedia)?

On March 04 2010 18:53 CrownRoyal wrote: Anarchy isnt even worth discussing because it's theoretically impossible.

Please don't become a scientist, ever, please.

i think baal has a different definition of anarchy than you guys, perhaps the than the rest of the world

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/toky...abuse-of-somali-marine-resources.aspx

Somalia piracy is a response to massive illegal fishing by asian/western countries and European countries have been dumping nuclear waste on their coast for some odd reason. The pirates were fishermen who call themselves volunteer coastguard of Somalia. With a stated purpose to tax illegal fishing or end it and to end the dumping going on their coast.

On March 04 2010 20:46 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2010 19:30 whamm! wrote: i think anarchy wont work with the how sick man has evolved in the recent 20 years and with the internet showing people that "deviant" behavior is "acceptable" is some parts of the world, this just reinforces some really disturbing beliefs or practices sickos have. i think anarchy now would just mean total , well anarchy lol Actually the internet is one example of functional anarchy, there is no oversight or control in the internet yet it works.

this is somewhat true. We are actually getting more and more limited every month on the Internet. It's only a matter of time before we are limited to what we can do/download on the Internet

On March 04 2010 20:46 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2010 19:30 whamm! wrote: i think anarchy wont work with the how sick man has evolved in the recent 20 years and with the internet showing people that "deviant" behavior is "acceptable" is some parts of the world, this just reinforces some really disturbing beliefs or practices sickos have. i think anarchy now would just mean total , well anarchy lol Actually the internet is one example of functional anarchy, there is no oversight or control in the internet yet it works.

the internet is just as much an example of why some form of governing is necessary.

if you disagree with this, then please resign from your moderator position asap, because you are essentially an elected government official of this particular internet community.

this allegory actually works really fucking nicely with my other arguements, shame I didnt notice your post and think about this earlier :
internet communities normally form and are rather small from the get-go. moderation is also usually hardly existant from the get-go. as internet communities increase, so does the need for moderation, largely because the more people, the less homogenous of a group you have, and the larger is the chance of people who just want to fuck up shit for others because it amuses them. this happened with tl.net as it grew, this happened with somethingawful.com as it grew, honestly I don't know of a single forum where a larger userbase has not resulted in a) it becoming an uninhabitable shithole, or b) moderation (governing) increasing to make it useable.

it's possible for some internet communities to be thriving without moderation. but these are all small and with groups of people that have known eachother for a long time. (examples, nohunters forum and the old bnet stratforumregs. ) however, even these forums need occasional moderation, because spammers might find the forum (nohunters introduced a phrase you need to type to identify you as a nohunters community member to handle spammers - active governing right there) or some other community might decide to troll it.

i agree

i also agree, well said drone

On March 09 2010 18:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2010 20:46 Baal wrote:   On March 04 2010 19:30 whamm! wrote: i think anarchy wont work with the how sick man has evolved in the recent 20 years and with the internet showing people that "deviant" behavior is "acceptable" is some parts of the world, this just reinforces some really disturbing beliefs or practices sickos have. i think anarchy now would just mean total , well anarchy lol Actually the internet is one example of functional anarchy, there is no oversight or control in the internet yet it works. the internet is just as much an example of why some form of governing is necessary. if you disagree with this, then please resign from your moderator position asap, because you are essentially an elected government official of this particular internet community. this allegory actually works really fucking nicely with my other arguements, shame I didnt notice your post and think about this earlier : internet communities normally form and are rather small from the get-go. moderation is also usually hardly existant from the get-go. as internet communities increase, so does the need for moderation, largely because the more people, the less homogenous of a group you have, and the larger is the chance of people who just want to fuck up shit for others because it amuses them. this happened with tl.net as it grew, this happened with somethingawful.com as it grew, honestly I don't know of a single forum where a larger userbase has not resulted in a) it becoming an uninhabitable shithole, or b) moderation (governing) increasing to make it useable. it's possible for some internet communities to be thriving without moderation. but these are all small and with groups of people that have known eachother for a long time. (examples, nohunters forum and the old bnet stratforumregs. ) however, even these forums need occasional moderation, because spammers might find the forum (nohunters introduced a phrase you need to type to identify you as a nohunters community member to handle spammers - active governing right there) or some other community might decide to troll it.

Your analogy fails for many reasons.

For startes, the internet is an anarchic entity, and liquidpoker is a corporation in it.

Nobody rules the internet (to some extent) the first attempt to do so is net-neutrality, something i think every one of us label as fucking crazy and stupid.

I am all for hierarchy system in corporations just as LP.Net.

So while your analogy is totally wrong, you are probably trying to question that if i firmly believe in anarchic systems why am i part of a position of power in liquidpoker, and the answer is very simple:

Moderators in lp.net are not paid, we dont hold a share % of the site, we dont charge you to use this, we are volunteers with very little actual power over you that spend a lot of time trying to selflessly improve and help this site, that is in no way remotely alike than a position in the government.

I mean im not trying to play saint here about being a mod, but i already said that what makes the government fails as a system if that greedy people (of power and money) are drawn to it, if the government benefits were shit, and that they really couldnt steal making crooked deals etc, then the government would be filled with self sacrificing people willing to help their country, the sad thing is such a thing cannot exist.

You could also view the internet as "earth" and various web sites as "countries"

baal = strawman arguments

what floofy said. internet communities can be compared to countries, they consist of large and different groups of people with different interests and some people are selfish and don't care if they fuck up things for other people in fact sometimes people deliberately try to do so for fun.

this happens both on the internet and in real life. laws certainly aren't flawless, but unfortunately they are, at least in some countries, much better than not having any. the belief that norway or sweden would be the heavens on earth they are without laws is just silly.. the defining characteristics of norway and sweden is that we have a ridiculously large amount of laws and governmental intervention in our lives, that most of the laws and actions done by the government makes sense, and that almost all people follow most of the laws and to some degree adhere to advice given by government organs. it is not that we have superior moral compasses that enable us to do the right thing just because.

basically, it wouldn't be possible to have the sort of educational system we have in scandinavia without a government. it wouldn't be possible to have a strong enough social security system that made everyone feel safe economically which is one of the strongest contributors to our low crime rates.. there's no doubt that we have some retarded laws, in particular regarding drugs, but most of the really dumb ones are hardly enforced and I'll gladly take them to ensure that there's a capable organ able to enforce the truly important ones.