So, what's wrong with Libertarianism?

[Tahuti]

Do you have an actual objection to what I posted?

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc means "With this, therefore, because of this" in Latin. Which is bascially his point. Now I will not say I agree with all of his' but raising that Somalia argument isn't a really a way to win debates about Libertarianism and stateless societies at all.

The fallacy that you're making is that you basically contend that Somalia has become a mess because there is no government (i.e cum hoc ergo propter hoc). Which ignores the fact that Somalia always was a mess to begin with, and in some ways it was even a worse mess before the stateless period started in 1991. Notice how I do not conclude that stateless societies are better because of it.

 

[Dachs]

also it's not clear that Somalia really can be described as a stateless society

 

[Tahuti]

also it's not clear that Somalia really can be described as a stateless society

That's true too. Areas controlled by Islamic militants definitely resemble states, if they cannot be considered states anyway, using Islamic laws to justify levying taxes.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yeah, if we're going to count Somalia as stateless, then we should be able to count the Republic of China as a stateless society.

 

[Cutlass]

That's odd, coming from someone who rails against corporate power.

Corporations are not people. And nothing I suggest would stop the people from voting.

 

[Cutlass]

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc means "With this, therefore, because of this" in Latin. Which is bascially his point. Now I will not say I agree with all of his' but raising that Somalia argument isn't a really a way to win debates about Libertarianism and stateless societies at all.

The fallacy that you're making is that you basically contend that Somalia has become a mess because there is no government (i.e cum hoc ergo propter hoc). Which ignores the fact that Somalia always was a mess to begin with, and in some ways it was even a worse mess before the stateless period started in 1991. Notice how I do not conclude that stateless societies are better because of it.

It may not be stateless, but the state is not controlling very much at all. The actions of most of the people are independent of any state action.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Corporations are not people. And nothing I suggest would stop the people from voting.

Well, yes, but so long as people are free to vote in elections, that power would not interfere with an inclusive society.

It may not be stateless, but the state is not controlling very much at all. The actions of most of the people are independent of any state action.

If that's your standard, there literally has never been a society that maintained a state in history.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, yes, but so long as people are free to vote in elections, that power would not interfere with an inclusive society.

If that's your standard, there literally has never been a society that maintained a state in history.

Some are a lot closer than others.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Some are a lot closer than others.

Albania or something like that would probably be the closest, but you're still proposing something that's been untested.

 

[Cutlass]

Albania or something like that would probably be the closest, but you're still proposing something that's been untested.

Not entirely, no. There's a pretty good correlation between the weakness of government and high violence and weak economies.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not entirely, no. There's a pretty good correlation between the weakness of government and high violence and weak economies.

How can this be established if, by your own admission, there has never been a society with an actual government?

 

[Cutlass]

How can this be established if, by your own admission, there has never been a society with an actual government?

 

[ParkCungHee]

You didn't challenge my assertion that by the standard of statelessness you've introduced, there has never been a society that meets the standard of functioning government.

Very well then, what is so bad about violence?

 

[Cutlass]

You didn't challenge my assertion that by the standard of statelessness you've introduced, there has never been a society that meets the standard of functioning government.

Your standard, maybe.

Very well then, what is so bad about violence?

Most people don't want to be murdered.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Your standard, maybe.

Fine, quote me where I introduced the standard. Tell me what the standard is.

Most people don't want to be murdered.

Most people want to murder, so what makes their claim so special?

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc means "With this, therefore, because of this" in Latin. Which is bascially his point. Now I will not say I agree with all of his' but raising that Somalia argument isn't a really a way to win debates about Libertarianism and stateless societies at all.

The fallacy that you're making is that you basically contend that Somalia has become a mess because there is no government (i.e cum hoc ergo propter hoc). Which ignores the fact that Somalia always was a mess to begin with, and in some ways it was even a worse mess before the stateless period started in 1991. Notice how I do not conclude that stateless societies are better because of it.

I couldn't have put that better. Thank you. Cutlass has a point though that I should have made it clearer I was referring to the Somalia fallacy.

 

[Cutlass]

I couldn't have put that better. Thank you. Cutlass has a point though that I should have made it clearer I was referring to the Somalia fallacy.

It's not really a fallacy. It's just an imperfect analogy. There is no convincing argument that you could scale back government to the point that extreme libertarians claim and not have a breakdown of all of society and economy.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

It's not really a fallacy. It's just an imperfect analogy. There is no convincing argument that you could scale back government to the point that extreme libertarians claim and not have a breakdown of all of society and economy.

I meant the line of reasoning is wrong. You can't say Somalia has no government (debatable but let's assume) and Somalia is a hell hole, so here you go: no government equals hell hole. That line of reasoning constitutes a logical fallacy (and indeed, pointing it out it doesn't prove anything -pro nor con- about scaling down governments).

 

[Cutlass]

I meant the line of reasoning is wrong. You can't say Somalia has no government (debatable but let's assume) and Somalia is a hell hole, so here you go: no government equals hell hole. That line of reasoning constitutes a logical fallacy (and indeed, pointing it out it doesn't prove anything -pro nor con- about scaling down governments).

Actually, with a good deal of historical and economic argument on my side, I can.

 

[Traitorfish]

If everyone can vote, than that's inclusive. If no one can, then it's not. Between the two are a range of shades of gray.

What is "voting", in practical terms? Most adult citizens in China can vote, doesn't appear to mean very much.

So Somalia really is the best you have to offer.

Somalia is hardly suffering from an absence of political power.

Well, you don't actually know that, because you know, that's not actually history. That's prehistory. And you don't know how societies behaved. There's evidence of hierarchy and forced inequality 12-15k years ago. Where's the evidence for people living without it? Pre-settlement hunter gathers didn't leave evidence. But then we have the animal kingdom, where a dominant individual and subordinates is common in animals that live in groups. So I really don't see how you can say that it was at all commonplace in pre-history for humans without dominance. And, certainly, once history started to be recorded in some form that we can read now, there isn't any substantial evidence of people living as you suggest.

Nah, there's, like, a bunch. That's really not a point of serious contention. If there's a debate, it's whether life without hierarchy is plausible in a complex industrial society, not whether it's plausible full stop. That's really just you polishing your Hobbes-boner.

But say we set aside the anthropology, because I get a feeling that avenue doesn't contain much beyond "nuhuh/yuhuh". Say we grant your claim, that all previous human societies have been hierarchical in nature. Why does that suggest that the domination of man over man is absolutely inevitable? Why are we to assume the equation of precedent and possibility?

Thats what I am saying. Libertarianism allows huge amounts of the power to go to unregulated mega-corporations. That's just as bad as all attempts at communism so far which focus large amounts of unchecked power towards the state. All systems involve large volumes of power going somewhere, but IMO those two system focus it at exceptionally small groups of people who are relatively unchecked. Even systems like modern western democracy show problems and corruption from it, but its a bit more checked and thus far hasnt slipped nearly as badly as i think the dreamed libertarian idea would.

But that's what I'm saying: the most diffuse organisation of power would be anarchism.