nvm
- Thread starter xarthaz
- Start date
Prolonged anarchy will evolve into decentralization of power into local and regional fiefdoms. And then as they coalesce, the strongest will begin to dominate their neighbors.
Yes, but the West needs to achieve it first. Until then, I think Haiti needs a stable and relatively democratic government along with all the aid it can get its hands on. Also, draconian measures to curb corruption should also be enacted.
holy king
Deity
no, but it adresses post 1.
Lil Post count
Chieftain
America should just annex Haiti, I mean seriously how many more times do you have to occupy and threw billions of dollars rebuilding there stupid country? It should be clear by now they don't know how to govern them selves, even before there earthquake there country looked like a trainwreck.
Mansa Musa
Warlord
Wouldn't annexing Haiti just make (i'm guessing) at least 4.5 million Haitians leave western Hispianola. Furthermore, local Haitian farmers ALREADY find it difficult to sell their crops against cheap US imports. Imagine if those imports were not foreign at all. Haitian industries would just die to the massive American industrial output. Haiti would flounder economically and remain this way for many, many years.
Furthermore, how are the Haitian people going accept the end of their independance from a power which has occupied them in the past and contributed to their present economic state? How are US conservatives going to react when they see southern states like Florida flooded with French speaking Blacks?
Come now...don't be silly.
Furthermore, how are the Haitian people going accept the end of their independance from a power which has occupied them in the past and contributed to their present economic state? How are US conservatives going to react when they see southern states like Florida flooded with French speaking Blacks?
Come now...don't be silly.
Lil Post count
Chieftain
It sounds like the Dominican Republic is going to have the first cure for herpes in the world!
Yeah but if Haiti were part of the US wouldn't they be able to sell there goods more cheaply and efficiently then if they were a separate country? Also wouldn't the Haitians have access to more resources and better educational opportunities( not to much more this still is an American education
) so they can expand into other industries besides agriculture?Who the hell cares what Haiti thinks? Letting these guys stay independent is like letting a blind ******** child run aimlessly through a sharpthing emporium.
There probably going to try and kiss there asses as they will be a new voting demographic they'll have to win over.
I can't promise anythingCome now...don't be silly.
While it might be impossible to precisely gauge the contribution of a central government its also undeniable that economic activity suffers greatly wherever failed governments become unable to exert their power over the lands, see for example Afghanistan,Yemen, Somalia, DR Congo, Pakistan, Colombia. Areas where the government has been driven out of are always poor and under the rule of local despots.
Since Somaliland has formed a government, is constantly at war with rebels, Pirates and Puntland and its disputed status is preventing companies from exploiting the sizable oil and gas deposits that were recently discovered (possibly bringing great wealth to the region) i'm not sure how it would be a good example of places working successfully under Anarchy.
PiMan
Deity
Tell me xarthas, are you Ludwig von Mises or Murray Rothbard, aiming to convince us of your anarchist ways?
If so, then we should notify your family immediately that you aren't as dead as they have been led to believe.
If not, then please use your own words. You will be most effective in convincing people if you show conviction in your own beliefs by always using your own words to describe the theories. Adding a source helps, but is not an adequate substitute for your own efforts.
You've been doing a little better recently, but all too frequently you slip into posting, "You are wrong because a dead guy said so *posts link or wall-of-text quote*."
If so, then we should notify your family immediately that you aren't as dead as they have been led to believe.
If not, then please use your own words. You will be most effective in convincing people if you show conviction in your own beliefs by always using your own words to describe the theories. Adding a source helps, but is not an adequate substitute for your own efforts.
You've been doing a little better recently, but all too frequently you slip into posting, "You are wrong because a dead guy said so *posts link or wall-of-text quote*."
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Just hilarious
Yes, I'm sure machete wielding gangs would do a much better job. Riiiight.
Anarchy does not work.
Yes, I'm sure machete wielding gangs would do a much better job. Riiiight.
Anarchy does not work.
While individual human actions are very difficult to predict the behavior of groups of people is quite easy to predict, anyone who has any idea of what he's talking about predicted looting and food riots after the Quake. The same goes for Anarchy(ism), it never worked and trying it just because there is a minuscule, theoretical chance that it could work would be an idiotic and reckless gamble with other people's lives.
Verbose
Deity
I'm kind of stumped trying to figure out why the OP assumes "drug gangs" will be a problem for ordinary Haitian under the circumstances described?
Who's going to be paying for drugs, much less fighting over control of that kind of business? There will be "food gangs", "clean water gangs", and "antibiotics gangs" I'll wager. They might then proceed to fight and/or organize themselves to such a point that the people with the most opportune mix of brain and brawn run the place, eventually.
It should mean the reinvention of the state as the biggest bastards around taking what they like in a sufficiently orderly fashion to make the situation long-term viable. Eventually.
Who's going to be paying for drugs, much less fighting over control of that kind of business? There will be "food gangs", "clean water gangs", and "antibiotics gangs" I'll wager. They might then proceed to fight and/or organize themselves to such a point that the people with the most opportune mix of brain and brawn run the place, eventually.
It should mean the reinvention of the state as the biggest bastards around taking what they like in a sufficiently orderly fashion to make the situation long-term viable. Eventually.
There really is no argument the best I can tell.
Er, you didn't offer an argument, xarthax, just a bunch of claims, whining about some sort of "positivist historian fallacy" by saying that any criticism of your posts is speculation, which is pretty weird considering that your posts in this thread, outside of not being your own words in the first place, is speculation as well.
Can you give me one example where anarchy has led to a better outcome than government? By example I mean one real world concrete example. Not a theoretical example.
