Somalia Libertarian Paradise

[Winchester]

ding ding ding. people arguing "persuasively" that Somalia is "much better" now that it is a failed state. we have no further need of witnesses. nutter butters come in packs of 12.

Congratulations. You skimmed the article. Now read it.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Winchester

[Winchester]

Is coercion also always and everywhere immoral?

Coercion is merely force. It's not inherently the initiation of force. I'm not against force.

 

http://freeisbeautiful.net/

[Nihil Obstat]

It is good to be back. :hehe:

[KnightofChrist]

Coercion is merely force. It's not inherently the initiation of force. I'm not against force.

http://freeisbeautiful.net/

So a form of government could exist that uses a police force and coercion to arrest and prosecute criminals?

[Era Might]

Just aside, it is nice to see so many experts on Somalian socioeconomic, geographic, and political issues here on Phatmass. I must confess that Somalia is a subject in which I am not at all qualified to make competent analyses. I hear the situation is rather complex. :proud:

 

You must get learn-ed, and then you will be worthy to stand in our presence.

[havok579257]

 

 

 

I am not attempting to propose another system. I am rejecting that you can stick a gun in my ribs (or hire other people to do so) to make me deal with murderers. Your desire for Utopia does not create any obligations for me.

 

 

This does not seems like a very catholic answer to me.  It seems your saying if person a murders person b then its not your problem and you should not have to deal with the murder of another human being. 

 

I thought as a catholic we are obligated to strive for a better world.  One where murders are not free to run about murdering innocent people.  Although you seem to indicate if your fellow man is murdered to bad, so sad, not your problem.  Again, doesn't seem very catholic to me.

 

So am I right in understanding your position correctly?

[Winchester]

So a form of government could exist that uses a police force and coercion to arrest and prosecute criminals?

So long as the coercion is not aggression, yes. That includes using aggression to obtain resources.

[Winchester]

This does not seems like a very catholic answer to me.  It seems your saying if person a murders person b then its not your problem and you should not have to deal with the murder of another human being. 

 

I thought as a catholic we are obligated to strive for a better world.  One where murders are not free to run about murdering innocent people.  Although you seem to indicate if your fellow man is murdered to bad, so sad, not your problem.  Again, doesn't seem very catholic to me.

 

So am I right in understanding your position correctly?

No. I have not denied a moral responsibility to aid in the cause of justice. I have said that no one may initiate violence (or threaten to do so) in order to obtain aid in this pursuit. I should help my fellow man, but if I choose not to, then there is no recourse to violence in order to compel my aid. This goes for me, as well. If Nihil stole my radio, I could not force you to help me recover it or seek to be compensated. If I asked you to help me, and you said "no", I would not be able to use violence to make you. 

 

As Catholics, we are supposed to strive for a better world. My position in no way contradicts that.

[Nihil Obstat]

In my defense, it was a pretty sick radio.

[havok579257]

No. I have not denied a moral responsibility to aid in the cause of justice. I have said that no one may initiate violence (or threaten to do so) in order to obtain aid in this pursuit. I should help my fellow man, but if I choose not to, then there is no recourse to violence in order to compel my aid. This goes for me, as well. If Nihil stole my radio, I could not force you to help me recover it or seek to be compensated. If I asked you to help me, and you said "no", I would not be able to use violence to make you. 

 

As Catholics, we are supposed to strive for a better world. My position in no way contradicts that.

 

 

So explain to me how in this form of law the unlawful, unjust and strongest will not rule the land?  Many people would honestly say "well it doesn't effect me, so who cares".  This would make the true criminals continue to murder, rape and steal whomever or whatever they want until they amassed enough people to take over the land.  So in effect it would be worse of then it is now.  So how on earth, in reality does this form of law/government work? 

[Winchester]

So explain to me how in this form of law the unlawful, unjust and strongest will not rule the land?  Many people would honestly say "well it doesn't effect me, so who cares".  This would make the true criminals continue to murder, rape and steal whomever or whatever they want until they amassed enough people to take over the land.  So in effect it would be worse of then it is now.  So how on earth, in reality does this form of law/government work? 

 

From my perspective, that's already happened. In Texas, DPS officers recently sexually assaulted women by the side of the road. The women were under threat of death if they resisted. Brigands with badges routinely confiscate property using "civil asset forfeiture". I am unlikely to run afoul of these codified criminal acts. I don't take part in the prohibited vices (although no knock warrant errors have resulted in the murder of those who also do not take part in the prohibited vices). This doesn't change the fact that modern law enforcement engages in theft, murder, assault and battery on a daily basis, and with full blessing of what our political class calls "the law". 

 

I think it would vary wildly. I don't see what would prevent good people from organizing in the same way. Some, perhaps many, would be disinterested in helping. Do you feel that such disinterest creates a right? Do you feel that you may force someone to help you bring a murderer to justice? Do you feel the only way to secure cooperation is to resort to the very same tactics used by the unlawful, unjust, and strongest? Do you think that merely by codifying a means of plunder that it then becomes just? Is it just to throw someone in prison for a minimum sentencing regarding a vice? People ought to help. If they choose not to, I don't believe I possess the right to force them to help. 

 

It's immaterial to me whether people would say "it doesn't affect me". The alleged efficacy of the modern state in suppressing crime does not justify its use of aggression. This is a normative position. There are many ideas about how a voluntary society would organize and deal with these issues. Some wax poetic, I think. Private arbitration is used even today. The Law Merchant is a good example of a voluntary law system. Weregeld was a system of dealing with criminal issues. All of these systems have weaknesses. None of those weaknesses can justify a system that makes use of aggression. Roderick Long has at least one good article on this matter. I also recommend Gerard Casey, who is very gentle about the whole thing. There's a link somewhere on here to "Free Is Beautiful" by Randy England. 

[havok579257]

From my perspective, that's already happened. In Texas, DPS officers recently sexually assaulted women by the side of the road. The women were under threat of death if they resisted. Brigands with badges routinely confiscate property using "civil asset forfeiture". I am unlikely to run afoul of these codified criminal acts. I don't take part in the prohibited vices (although no knock warrant errors have resulted in the murder of those who also do not take part in the prohibited vices). This doesn't change the fact that modern law enforcement engages in theft, murder, assault and battery on a daily basis, and with full blessing of what our political class calls "the law". 

 

I think it would vary wildly. I don't see what would prevent good people from organizing in the same way. Some, perhaps many, would be disinterested in helping. Do you feel that such disinterest creates a right? Do you feel that you may force someone to help you bring a murderer to justice? Do you feel the only way to secure cooperation is to resort to the very same tactics used by the unlawful, unjust, and strongest? Do you think that merely by codifying a means of plunder that it then becomes just? Is it just to throw someone in prison for a minimum sentencing regarding a vice? People ought to help. If they choose not to, I don't believe I possess the right to force them to help. 

 

It's immaterial to me whether people would say "it doesn't affect me". The alleged efficacy of the modern state in suppressing crime does not justify its use of aggression. This is a normative position. There are many ideas about how a voluntary society would organize and deal with these issues. Some wax poetic, I think. Private arbitration is used even today. The Law Merchant is a good example of a voluntary law system. Weregeld was a system of dealing with criminal issues. All of these systems have weaknesses. None of those weaknesses can justify a system that makes use of aggression. Roderick Long has at least one good article on this matter. I also recommend Gerard Casey, who is very gentle about the whole thing. There's a link somewhere on here to "Free Is Beautiful" by Randy England. 

I would hardly say this current form of government is anywhere near as bad as it could be.  That's being dishonest.  Not saying this form of government is bad, but it could be so much worse.  Until I see America do stuff like Nazi Germany during WWII, then I am hard pressed to say this is the worst it can get.  In your form of government its not out of the question many criminals could form a coalition and decide to kill every Christian, rape any and all single women, exterminate the black race in America and so on and so on.  No way can you honestly say our current form of law is worse than this idea.

 

I have no problem putting violent criminals in jail.  I don't believe rapists, murders and such should just be able to get away with their crimes.  I also believe in so called force to help innocents bring their purps to justice.  An example is a single female with no friends or family who gets raped.  I do not think its right to say its your responsiblitiy to bring your rapists to justice and if you can't, well sucks for you.  I think if society will not freely help this then you can and should so called force people to help.  Here is why.  If your going to join a society, a group of people and benefit from things they provide, then you have a responsibility.  If your willing to use society's services then you need to help out in a way society says to further its safety(with in reason).  If your not wanting to do that, then fine that's your choice but you don't get to be part of society.  Move away, don't use roads or hospitals or any service this society provides.  Literally do everything on your own by yourself.  Then I am ok with you not being so called, forced to help.  I take issues with people who want all the benefits of joining a society but want no responsibility.  Its a trade off.  You want services, you want help, you want the benefits of other humans, then you have responsibilities to society and one of them is helping keep society safe.  If your not willing to do that, then go off by yourself and create your own society all by your lonesome. 

 

This is the problem I have with this theory of government.  It wants help and use of services from society but does not want to help at all.  Its all take and no give.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

This is the problem I have with this theory of government.  It wants help and use of services from society but does not want to help at all.  Its all take and no give.

Actually this is not even remotely near what people like Winchester and I advocate.

[Winchester]

I would hardly say this current form of government is anywhere near as bad as it could be.  That's being dishonest.  Not saying this form of government is bad, but it could be so much worse.  Until I see America do stuff like Nazi Germany during WWII, then I am hard pressed to say this is the worst it can get.  In your form of government its not out of the question many criminals could form a coalition and decide to kill every Christian, rape any and all single women, exterminate the black race in America and so on and so on.  No way can you honestly say our current form of law is worse than this idea.

 

I have no problem putting violent criminals in jail.  I don't believe rapists, murders and such should just be able to get away with their crimes.  I also believe in so called force to help innocents bring their purps to justice.  An example is a single female with no friends or family who gets raped.  I do not think its right to say its your responsiblitiy to bring your rapists to justice and if you can't, well smells of elderberries for you.  I think if society will not freely help this then you can and should so called force people to help.  Here is why.  If your going to join a society, a group of people and benefit from things they provide, then you have a responsibility.  If your willing to use society's services then you need to help out in a way society says to further its safety(with in reason).  If your not wanting to do that, then fine that's your choice but you don't get to be part of society.  Move away, don't use roads or hospitals or any service this society provides.  Literally do everything on your own by yourself.  Then I am ok with you not being so called, forced to help.  I take issues with people who want all the benefits of joining a society but want no responsibility.  Its a trade off.  You want services, you want help, you want the benefits of other humans, then you have responsibilities to society and one of them is helping keep society safe.  If your not willing to do that, then go off by yourself and create your own society all by your lonesome. 

 

This is the problem I have with this theory of government.  It wants help and use of services from society but does not want to help at all.  Its all take and no give.

I believe you think you are responding to what I've said.

[Not The Philosopher]

This thread reminds me of the time when I took a political philosophy class with this prof. who is kind of a big name in ancient philosophy scholarship. He turned out to be quite the anarcho-capitalist, which made our class discussions 100% more fun than my International Relations class (oh the shock and indignation); I bet those kids never expected to find Hans Herman Hoppe on their reading list.

 

I'm still more of an old-fashioned Tory though, although I find libertarianism appealing at times.