Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
im talking about somaliland, the govt based in hargeisa. not the wannabe govt in mogadishu. that portion of somalia, ya obviously controlled by warlords and islamists. not a very pleasant place to live, i would imagine. im just saying, there are several govts in somalia. somaliland, djibouti, puntland, wannabe federal govt, etc so not sure why it keeps being mentioned
im talking about somaliland, the govt based in hargeisa. not the wannabe govt in mogadishu. that portion of somalia, ya obviously controlled by warlords and islamists. not a very pleasant place to live, i would imagine. im just saying, there are several govts in somalia. somaliland, djibouti, puntland, the transitional govt, islamists, warlords, etc. so not sure why it keeps being mentioned
Because No_Recess wants to live in anarchy. No gov't, no rules except those that he agrees to voluntarily. He doesn't think any set of laws should be applicable until he gives his express consent to be governed by a specific law.
You have a mental block of what "help" really is. I used to have it too.
You believe in being a preemptive thief and think it's moral.
Of course it is moral, we all agreed to chip in to cover for the infrastructure and for the weak.
We all chip in to pay for the sidewalks, military, fire department, ambulances and to see out country grow stronger and better. What's wrong with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
I understand that force is evil and can and will help only when I freely choose to.
Force is not evil per se. it can be evil but it can be heroic as in forcibly stopping someone from raping a 7 years old child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
Life is messy. People are going to suffer and die despite our best voluntary efforts. They suffer and die under your tyrannical efforts.
people are going to suffer no matter what but it does not mean we should just take a step back and watch.
My society takes care of the elderly, disabled, sick and weak. Your society doesn't care.
Which one is moral?
I dunno man. Where ever they find most tolerable I guess. Everyone is different. For the ideological sobs who want to convert everyone or whatever there is no right answer. They'll always be dissatisfied.
if anything anarchists should be pushing for more nation states. i think patri friedman has the right idea w his seasteading idea, create a bunch of small micronations, generate some competition in the governing industry through dynamic geography, etc. nothing wrong w panarchy.
I think the less centralized power the better, but I can't support any organization that initiates force. If I still believed that some government was necessary I would definitely support more nation-states. In college I did some reports on nations that wanted sovereignty from their current government (Catalonia in Spain, for example) but aren't being allowed to or the population has somewhat mixed feelings about it.
Many nations - people with a shared language, history, culture - want their own state to make their own choices that will better represent their nation, but the current state they are in doesn't want to lose their tax dollars and overall power that comes with being a larger state. I say let those nations rule themselves...the breakup of Yugoslavia is an example of something I'd like to see more of.
What I really support is the sovereignty of the individual because every person either owns themselves or someone else owns them. Therefore I am against the state because, when you break it down logically, they claim to own you and then treat you as their property.
I think the less centralized power the better, but I can't support any organization that initiates force. If I still believed that some government was necessary I would definitely support more nation-states. In college I did some reports on nations that wanted sovereignty from their current government (Catalonia in Spain, for example) but aren't being allowed to or the population has somewhat mixed feelings about it.
Many nations - people with a shared language, history, culture - want their own state to make their own choices that will better represent their nation, but the current state they are in doesn't want to lose their tax dollars and overall power that comes with being a larger state. I say let those nations rule themselves...the breakup of Yugoslavia is an example of something I'd like to see more of.
What I really support is the sovereignty of the individual because every person either owns themselves or someone else owns them. Therefore I am against the state because, when you break it down logically, they claim to own you and then treat you as their property.
The size and scope is irrelevant if it's involuntary. That we know.
I suspect over 99% of the population would join voluntary/cooperative associations. In order to be easily dismantled and scrutinized I also suspect membership in each association would be relatively small...scope as well.
Those unable to break the statist mindset would either die from simply being unable to function on their own or immediately try to set up an involuntary State again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
