WAR! Against the Statists!

[thoreau]

An-caps say a lot of things. I like some an-cap points and I like them better than most brands of anarchy, but some can still fall into the general anarchist trap of rejoicing in the smashing of "the state" even when that leaves an organization backed by armed men telling you what to do - something they conspicuously refuse to admit is a government.
...
There's a point at which some people with guns can become a government. Many statists like to pretend this is sometime around when a constitution is written, some nice, marble buildings are built, and the US gives diplomatic recognition. I say it's a lot closer to (or pretty much the same as) the time those people announce, "We're in charge, here."

Yep. I think that the only way to get anything that really isn't a government is to go to a situation like Snowcrash. Short of that, you have government, even if that government happens to wear (circle all that apply: tribal dress, uniforms of private security companies, the colors of the local warlord).

[thoreau]

Refining what I just wrote a bit more, if they say "We're in charge of anyone in this area" they're a government. Whatever their marginal tax rate, they're a government. They're something akin to Snowcrash if they say "We will protect anybody who wishes to join us, and if you don't wish to join us we'll leave you alone as long as you leave our people alone. And if you are accused of not leaving our people alone, we will respond in accordance with protocols negotiated with whoever you happen to be aligned with."

But, let's be honest: How many people declare "We're in charge here" instead of "We will only mess with you in accordance with protocols"?

[fyodor]

Look, there are some real differences between what's going on in Somalia and the, um, state of things in North America and Europe, and I don't see how you're racist for noticing them.

There are lots of differences in the world.

To say that the people in charge who are backed by guys with guns are only "governments" if they look, dress, and act sufficiently like Western officials

Aw geez, that's so presumptuous, Eric. Of course no one has said that, so you're playing the game of "the reasons they give for their position don't make sense to me, so I'll take the liberty of attributing reasons to their position that they haven't given and never would." Such inner-workings-of-their-minds speculation can be interesting at times when you think you've hit on something worth pondering, but you should admit it's speculation, not a proven fact. And FYI (yes, I'm being sarcastic because you obviously know this but your language would seem to belie that), states that statists recognize as states do not only exist in the West. In fact, they pretty much exist everywhere on six continents except in Somalia. It's just a little overboard to say people call Somalia anarchic because "the people in charge who are backed by guys with guns" don't "look, dress, and act sufficiently like Western officials"! Why don't they say that about all of Africa, then?

strikes me as much more about style than substance, if noting the colors of the people involved seems too on-the-nose. Even in the case of open conflict, people usually acknowledge who's leading which governments, instead of just saying, "Nobody's in charge of this war!"

So now the comparison is not to mult-stated continents at peace but to other wars? Besides the all important state-run internal security issue, it's rare to see multi-fronted wars. That the area we call Somalia represents a rare multi-fronted war within a territory that was once unified under an effective (and viciously so) central government. Again, I'm not saying "anarchy" is necessarily the best description for this situation. I am saying there are some good reasons for saying that, and...

I doubt I could find it now, but I remember reading an article written by an anarcho-capitalist (linked to either by Stevo or an anarchist at Hit & Run, I think) that claimed that economic conditions have improved in Somalia since the collapse of the central government! The view that Somalia represents anarchy is not just for statists!

An-caps say a lot of things. I like some an-cap points and I like them better than most brands of anarchy, but some can still fall into the general anarchist trap of rejoicing in the smashing of "the state" even when that leaves an organization backed by armed men telling you what to do - something they conspicuously refuse to admit is a government.

...that it's not just statists who say so.

There's a point at which some people with guns can become a government. Many statists like to pretend this is sometime around when a constitution is written, some nice, marble buildings are built, and the US gives diplomatic recognition. I say it's a lot closer to (or pretty much the same as) the time those people announce, "We're in charge, here."

Yes, YOU SEZ. But that's what I call begging the question. Y'know, there's not always bright lines between what is and what isn't. Yes, the fact that there are men with guns saying they're in charge contributes to state-like attributes to what's going on in Somalia. The facts that these "states" are fleeting and borderless and perform very few if any of the functions that all the other states around the world outside of Somalia perform other than maintaing being in charge*, well, you say that's all irrelevant. I'm just saying that's far from implicitly true or accurate and it's begging the question to assert it.

And to return to my primary point, which I don't believe you've addressed at all, it's the lack of state-run internal security that most alarms people (not just the libertarian-hating bozos on PZ Meyers's blog threads) about Somalia and which they most associate with what they (not entirely without good reason) call anarchy.

*ETA: And add to that the fact that this situation came about as a result of the dissolution of a former state that ruled over the entire territory. This is very important because those who hold up Somalia as an example of "anarchy" (like me, to the degree that I am) are at least partly pointing to the genesis of the situation as opposed to the exact nature of the current situation itself. Put another way, maybe Somalia represents "anarchy" the way the Soviet Union represented Marxian Communism. IOW, perhaps "anarchy" as drawn up on paper cannot exist (in today's world) and what you get when you dissolve "the state" is a bunch of quasi-states fighting to become the new state!

Now, I'm open to the possibility that if "the state" is dissolved in a peaceful manner by anarchist adherents in different circumstances, that a different and better outcome is possible. Add to that the fact that Somalia was a horrible place under its last central government, and that's why I'm open to the possibility that dissolving "the state" could be a good thing. But what's happening in Somalia, which is exactly what many of us would fear would happen, is evidence (if not proof positive) to the contrary.

[fyodor]

BTW, has Shem made it over to the new Reality?

[Eric the .5b]

Look, there are some real differences between what's going on in Somalia and the, um, state of things in North America and Europe, and I don't see how you're racist for noticing them.

There are lots of differences in the world.

To say that the people in charge who are backed by guys with guns are only "governments" if they look, dress, and act sufficiently like Western officials

Aw geez, that's so presumptuous, Eric. Of course no one has said that, so you're playing the game of "the reasons they give for their position don't make sense to me, so I'll take the liberty of attributing reasons to their position that they haven't given and never would."

That's what their reasons boil down to. Don't like it? Don't be...well, them.

And FYI (yes, I'm being sarcastic because you obviously know this but your language would seem to belie that), states that statists recognize as states do not only exist in the West.

FYI, I never said that they didn't. You might review what I've actually said if you're confused. For reference, you quote it next:

In fact, they pretty much exist everywhere on six continents except in Somalia. It's just a little overboard to say people call Somalia anarchic because "the people in charge who are backed by guys with guns" don't "look, dress, and act sufficiently like Western officials"! Why don't they say that about all of Africa, then?

Because other African government officials actually do look and act acceptable enough for Western tastes, down to often wearing suits or military uniforms and working in nice, stone or concrete buildings.

So now the comparison is not to mult-stated continents at peace but to other wars?

You brought up the issue of war; I just kept things consistent. If there was a multi-front war in Europe, would that make the continent an "anarchy"?

...that it's not just statists who say so.

Again, so? I'm not bound by their arguments or beliefs, and those who make that argument are as wrong as the statists.

There's a point at which some people with guns can become a government. Many statists like to pretend this is sometime around when a constitution is written, some nice, marble buildings are built, and the US gives diplomatic recognition. I say it's a lot closer to (or pretty much the same as) the time those people announce, "We're in charge, here."

Yes, YOU SEZ.

No shit, fyodor - I just said I sez it.

But that's what I call begging the question.

You may dub it that; as that's not actually anything like "begging the question", I'm not seeing a problem.

Y'know, there's not always bright lines between what is and what isn't. Yes, the fact that there are men with guns saying they're in charge contributes to state-like attributes to what's going on in Somalia. The facts that these "states" are fleeting and borderless and perform very few if any of the functions that all the other states around the world outside of Somalia perform other than maintaing being in charge*, well, you say that's all irrelevant.

Yes. Just as some people will start out saying a "real government" must represent the democratic will of the people, must recognize the rights of all it represents, yadda yadda, until you point out the People's Republic of China, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, and ask those people whether they're "real governments". (And then we get into the whole morass of "legitimate" government.)

When people throw on lots and lots of extra qualifiers to restrict what counts as a "government" to a subset they find acceptable, it's a textbook case of No True Scotsman.

And to return to my primary point, which I don't believe you've addressed at all

To see how I addressed that point, you could read my last post, fyodor. Just saying.

[Eric the .5b]

To boil it down, Fyodor, you seem to take a lot of umbrage with what I've said, but you haven't said how or why I'm wrong, aside from how you can understand why various statist folks might disagree (but pointedly without buying into their reasons for doing so). There's nothing circular about my argument, and there's no question begged.

[fyodor]

To boil it down, Fyodor, you seem to take a lot of umbrage with what I've said, but you haven't said how or why I'm wrong, aside from how you can understand why various statist folks might disagree (but pointedly without buying into their reasons for doing so). There's nothing circular about my argument, and there's no question begged.

I'm disagreeing that citing Somalia as an example of the anarchy side of libertarianism is not inherently fallacious. I'm saying the situation in Somalia does raise some valid questions about anarchist thinking. Primarily regarding whether the dissolution of a government (which the removal of its power to tax could very well lead to) would inevitably lead to a civil war to fill the power vacuum. Whether one calls that anarchy or a reflection of the impossibility of anarchy is primarily semantic. And I'm saying that it's the inability of those "governments" in Somalia to behave in the way all the other True Scotsmen of the world behave that, rightly or wrongly (but it's not so wrong as to be beyond the pale), most worries most people about the "anarchic" situation there.

[pistoffnick]

Is this the article you guys mentioned?

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_
Stateless.pdf

ETA: Jeesh, get a room, you two!

[Eric the .5b]

I'm disagreeing that citing Somalia as an example of the anarchy side of libertarianism is not inherently fallacious. I'm saying the situation in Somalia does raise some valid questions about anarchist thinking. Primarily regarding whether the dissolution of a government (which the removal of its power to tax could very well lead to) would inevitably lead to a civil war to fill the power vacuum.

Not to unnecessarily defend anarcho-capitalists, but Somalia doesn't really raise any new points any prior failed state didn't or establish that the dissolution of any government would inevitably lead to a civil war. I think that's a strong possibility, but I don't think that's shown to be true.

Whether one calls that anarchy or a reflection of the impossibility of anarchy is primarily semantic. And I'm saying that it's the inability of those "governments" in Somalia to behave in the way all the other True Scotsmen of the world behave that, rightly or wrongly (but it's not so wrong as to be beyond the pale), most worries most people about the "anarchic" situation there.

Thank goodness all other governments in the world provide adequate internal security and whatever other guarantees make people comfortable with the definition.

But yeah, if we're arguing at the level of "anarchy" being a semantic quibble, I don't think we have much of an argument, fyodor.

[fyodor]

If there was a multi-front war in Europe, would that make the continent an "anarchy"?

If there was a multi-front civil war within the territory of a former state as a result of a power vacuum casued by the dissolution of the former central authority (i.e., that former authority is not one of the combatants) with little apparent attention being paid to individual security by those fighting the civil war, I think a lot of people would call that anarchy and I would similarly wonder if some of the bad aspects of the situation were caused by the dissolution of the central authority and was thus a reflection of the failings of anarchist theory.

To see how I addressed that point, you could read my last post, fyodor. Just saying.

Damn, I cut part of what I wanted to quote (what you were responding to) and now I can't get it back without a lot of rigmarole....

Anyway, sorry, I missed that part in your earlier post. Hmm, clan security? Well, maybe that's a fearture of anarchy? Again, a lot of this is definitional. I'm not sure if I fully understand the No True Scotsman fallacy as it applies to something that's merely defined differently by different people. I mean, a Scotsman is one who is descended by other Scots. If people think that a government has to have concrete buildings and contain people with suits and ties, what of it? Then yeah, maybe that's what you need to maintain meaningful law and order within a society? I don't myself think it's as simple as that. I just also don't think it's as simple as saying that because there are people with guns saying they're in charge within Somalia that the circumstances there cannot possibly say anything about the practice of anarchy versus the theory of anarchism. Which would be my point. In critisizing the idiots at PZ Meyer's blog I think you've drawn too wide a circle. It seems that you're saying nothing in Somalia resembles anarchy and that's all there is to it. Nothing to see here. That's what I'm taking issue with you over.

I would hope that most statists are aware that plenty of states throughout history have been awful places. If they aren't, well nuts to them. As I stated earlier, Somalia was an awful place before the dissolution of its central government, so, along with other reasons, its example is far from proof positive that anarchy is bad/doesn't work. But whereas we have awful states and decent states, we have one dissolved state in the world today and the result has been civil war and the impression that it's not a very safe place to be. One for one turning out just as opponents to anarchy would fear. So that's not very encouraging for the idea that dissolving the state would be a good idea. That's all.

[fyodor]

I'm disagreeing that citing Somalia as an example of the anarchy side of libertarianism is not inherently fallacious. I'm saying the situation in Somalia does raise some valid questions about anarchist thinking. Primarily regarding whether the dissolution of a government (which the removal of its power to tax could very well lead to) would inevitably lead to a civil war to fill the power vacuum.

Not to unnecessarily defend anarcho-capitalists, but Somalia doesn't really raise any new points any prior failed state didn't or establish that the dissolution of any government would inevitably lead to a civil war. I think that's a strong possibility, but I don't think that's shown to be true.

"Shown"? It's not proof, but it's evidence.

Whether one calls that anarchy or a reflection of the impossibility of anarchy is primarily semantic. And I'm saying that it's the inability of those "governments" in Somalia to behave in the way all the other True Scotsmen of the world behave that, rightly or wrongly (but it's not so wrong as to be beyond the pale), most worries most people about the "anarchic" situation there.

Thank goodness all other governments in the world provide adequate internal security and whatever other guarantees make people comfortable with the definition.

Not sure of your point.

I'll give you the one concrete example of someone thinking Somalia is an awful place in a way that's reflective of anarchy that I'm very aware of. Babushka does a lot of work with Somalian refugees. She's heard that it's an extremely dangerous place to go if you don't find a way to secure reliable private security. As awful as the government of Myanmar is, it's still not nearly so dangerous to go there (and probably not for most of the people living there, either). This is what a lot of people notice and are concerned about. I'm not saying there's no valid counter-arguments to this. I'm just saying it's a real difference and not merely one of style.

[Mo]

If there was a multi-front war in Europe, would that make the continent an "anarchy"?

If there was a multi-front civil war within the territory of a former state as a result of a power vacuum casued by the dissolution of the former central authority (i.e., that former authority is not one of the combatants) with little apparent attention being paid to individual security by those fighting the civil war, I think a lot of people would call that anarchy and I would similarly wonder if some of the bad aspects of the situation were caused by the dissolution of the central authority and was thus a reflection of the failings of anarchist theory.

What about a war between two or more former Soviet Republics?

[Kolohe]

[quote=thoreau]But, let's be honest: How many people declare "We're in charge here" instead of "We will only mess with you in accordance with protocols"?[/quote]

Technically this is what some white folks on the eastern end of the north American continent did circa 1787 wrt the aboriginal population - their follow through in the subsequent generations was to grossly understate things markedly different from their 18th century declaration

[Jadagul]

Megan McArdle posts on a really counterintuitive study that seems to support all our libertarian preconceptions. I worry only because it seems too good.

[J sub D]

Megan McArdle posts on a really counterintuitive study that seems to support all our libertarian preconceptions. I worry only because it seems too good.

Government Spending May Hurt the Private Sector

From a statist's perspective, this is a feature.

[PicassoIII]

Hmm, getting back to debating with leftybots in general.
It helps to remind them of Prop 8 in Cali.
Some Reasonoid's law (RC?): "Me today, you tommorow". Your favorite rhetorical crutch can turn on you Rachel.

[Jadagul]

Megan McArdle posts on a really counterintuitive study that seems to support all our libertarian preconceptions. I worry only because it seems too good.

Government Spending May Hurt the Private Sector

From a statist's perspective, this is a feature.

I assume that's sarcastic? Very few people say, "Wow, this is a great government program, it'll totally tank the economy!"

[D.A. Ridgely]

Megan McArdle posts on a really counterintuitive study that seems to support all our libertarian preconceptions. I worry only because it seems too good.

Government Spending May Hurt the Private Sector

From a statist's perspective, this is a feature.

I assume that's sarcastic? Very few people say, "Wow, this is a great government program, it'll totally tank the economy!"

No, but they do say things like, "This is a great government program that will keep the fat cat corporations and bankers and such from making or keeping obscene profits."

[Jadagul]

Megan McArdle posts on a really counterintuitive study that seems to support all our libertarian preconceptions. I worry only because it seems too good.

Government Spending May Hurt the Private Sector

From a statist's perspective, this is a feature.

I assume that's sarcastic? Very few people say, "Wow, this is a great government program, it'll totally tank the economy!"

No, but they do say things like, "This is a great government program that will keep the fat cat corporations and bankers and such from making or keeping obscene profits."

Yeah, but the idea that increased pork reduces private employment? Most people consider that a bad thing.

More generally, it seems obvious that increased pork in one state ought to benefit that state's economy, because it's a free gift from the other states. The fact that it's harmful instead indicates that it must have some really pernicious consequences.

[J sub D]

More generally, it seems obvious that increased pork in one state ought to benefit that state's economy, because it's stolen from the other states. The fact that it's harmful instead indicates that it must have some really pernicious consequences.

Truth in commenting.