[Buzz62]

OK first of all...the USA is already heavily socialist.
Those of you who would dispute this...enjoy cashing your SS checks...or Medicare/Medicaid.

There is this "McCarthy-ist" residue on America that dictates that anything left of the political center is bad and dangerous.
The T-Baggers are perfect examples of "McCarthy-ist" ideas run amuck.

There will always be "leaders" as there always has been.
These "alpha" personalities are quite often in it for themselves.
For instance...the masses believe that the business of politics is to properly represent the wishes of the constituents.
In a perfect world, this would be. But this is far from a perfect world.
Politics is the business of collecting and maintaining power for one's self.
As such, the most successful politicians are usually those driven by greed.
Yet greed is certainly not a quality anyone would want in a leader.

So is it possible...in our current condition...to have a truly socialist system?
Not really I'm afraid. The best we can hope for is a benevolent leader who understands that he/she is not the only important person.
That the constituents have needs that must be provided for.

Capitalism...it can be argued...attempts to harness that greed for productive ends.
This is also not possible, as only the alpha people will rise to the very top.
Most people do not have alpha personalities, and tend to get trampled.
Who evens the playing field for them? Well, again in a perfect world, it would be the government.
But the government is bought and paid for by the greedy Capitalists.

Bottom line:
The 2 systems...Capitalism and Socialism...must be merged to form a benevolent yet focused society.
One without the other...in our current condition...is nonsense and produces mud.

[Buzz62]

Eran: This is the textbook explanation...it is also only partially true...

It is true that communist societies had a "psudo-economy". Values were rather meaningless as was currency.
Yet it was not really this lack of what we might call "a true economy" that dragged the Soviets down.
It was...GREED.

The masses may not be alpha types...but they are not blind and stupid...usually...
The masses quickly realized those in power were not really interested in providing for them...but were more interested in providing for themselves. The raped and pillaged without any repercussions. Thus the masses followed suit, and quit working for the government and stated trying to work for themselves...or they simply gave up and drank themselves to death. Either way...national productivity took a nose-dive.

THAT'S what killed Communism as the Soviets practiced it.
The end result...other than the total collapse...was a society based almost entirely on greed.
This mind-set still exists over there...and its annoying as hell.

Our GREED is the single most destructive trait we have...yet it is part of us.
Our task is to find a reasonable way to focus it and temper it.
Maybe someday...but quite obviously...this is not that day...

[Eran]

Eran: This is the textbook explanation...

Indeed I regret to agree that I haven't come up with it myself.

The masses quickly realized those in power were not really interested in providing for them...but were more interested in providing for themselves. The raped and pillaged without any repercussions. Thus the masses followed suit, and quit working for the government and stated trying to work for themselves...or they simply gave up and drank themselves to death. Either way...national productivity took a nose-dive.

As a matter of historic record, you are partially right, of course. The incentive (as well as abuse of power) problem in socialism is severe and probably unsolvable outside the context of small, voluntary and strongly-ideological communities.

Our GREED is the single most destructive trait we have...yet it is part of us.

Greed is only as destructive as the available means to satisfy it. In socialist or even mixed economies, greed can be satisfied at the expense of others, using political means. In a crime-ridden society, greed can be satisfied by robbing or defrauding others.

In a purely capitalist society, on the other hand, one in which property rights are respected, but with no government intervention in the economy (ideally no government at all, but a minarchy would work fairly well too), the only way to satisfy one's greed is through production and trade. Greed is thus diverted from a destructive force to become a highly productive one.

[Buzz62]

In a purely capitalist society, on the other hand, one in which property rights are respected, but with no government intervention in the economy (ideally no government at all, but a minarchy would work fairly well too), the only way to satisfy one's greed is through production and trade. Greed is thus diverted from a destructive force to become a highly productive one.

Ahhhhh...we're gonna do this again are we...

OK...

IMO...Erin your anarchistic beliefs are based on living in a perfect world.
This is not a perfect world.
Your assumption that with no governing body, people will just work for the betterment of themselves LEGALLY, hence for the betterment of the society...is "pie in the sky".
In a world void of policing influences, people go ape-shit.
You speak of respect for property rights... ...do you realize that in a truly anarchistic society, you'd need several guns, tons of ammo, and were you to manage to hang on to your current property...it would be as a result of having blasted the heads off numerous other people...who also want to "respect" your property.

Social governance is ESSENTIAL to us...given our current condition.
We know this...hence we impose on ourselves...governance.

[Eauz]

Its more an example of failed government and subsequent collapse in a poor country dominated by tribal strife.

It has a minimalist government that allows the market to determine who benefits from what. The individual is the most important aspect of the society to make alliances and agreements amongst each other and there is no coercion by the government to force people to do things like pay taxes, go to school, live a certain life-style. Just because you want to ignore parts of your own ideology, does not mean it can't be defined as this.

[Nunt]

It has a minimalist government that allows the market to determine who benefits from what. The individual is the most important aspect of the society to make alliances and agreements amongst each other and there is no coercion by the government to force people to do things like pay taxes, go to school, live a certain life-style. Just because you want to ignore parts of your own ideology, does not mean it can't be defined as this.

First, we need to make an honest comparison. Somalia is in a poor continent that known poverty and war. Simply pointing to Somalia and finding that it's a worse place to live in than a Western developed country doesn't make much sense.
Second, there was a communist government pre-1991, but it became corrupt and totalitarian until the communist system finally collapsed into a civil war. The statist system collapsed and it left a real big mess behind. That mess isn't going to be solved instantly.
Third, not only is the country poor, it also lacks the proper instutions that prevent dictatorships and war from arising. It seems highly unlikely that an army colonel manages to overthrow a western government, but in Africa, this seems to be more rule than exception.
Fourth, there is a central government, but it seems powerless to stop the mess that the communist collapse left behind. So how anarchist is it really?

Imo, the case of Somalia is hardly an example of an anarchic society, let alone an ancap society. Sharia law is practiced often and this doesnt really coincide with ancap law. The central government may be ineffective, but that doesnt mean there are no states. The country has just fallen apart into some smaller states each ruled by a warlord. Warlords aren't really ancap you know. Thats just replacing one state with another.

So how bad is the country really performing?
Lets compare the life expectancy with some of its neighbours: http://www.bit.ly/KHop8G or GDP: http://www.bit.ly/KHoHwb

Conclusion: Somalia is more of an example of a failed state than an ancap society and doesn't seem to perform much worse than other (failed) states in the region. Somalia was a third world country before and is still a third world country today. Im not sure what extensive conclusions you want to draw from that.

[Eran]

Your assumption that with no governing body, people will just work for the betterment of themselves LEGALLY, hence for the betterment of the society...is "pie in the sky".
In a world void of policing influences, people go ape-shit.
You speak of respect for property rights... ...do you realize that in a truly anarchistic society, you'd need several guns, tons of ammo, and were you to manage to hang on to your current property...it would be as a result of having blasted the heads off numerous other people...who also want to "respect" your property.

Social governance is ESSENTIAL to us...given our current condition.
We know this...hence we impose on ourselves...governance.

I actually agree. Our only difference is that you identify governance with government. They are not the same. Government is a forced monopoly over the use of force, typically funded through coerced taxation. Governance, on the other hand, can be accomplished without violating people's property rights, without initiation of force or taxation. A network of competing and cooperating organizations can form the same role more effectively and without aggression.

In a stable democracy, both political and military leaders "play by the rules", even though, being part of government, they are not subject to government force. The President, for example, is not constrained by government - he runs government. He isn't constrained by the constitution - many countries have constitutions that are promptly ignored by political leaders. No - he is constrained by the prevailing political culture.

[Buzz62]

I actually agree. Our only difference is that you identify governance with government. They are not the same. Government is a forced monopoly over the use of force, typically funded through coerced taxation. Governance, on the other hand, can be accomplished without violating people's property rights, without initiation of force or taxation. A network of competing and cooperating organizations can form the same role more effectively and without aggression.

In a stable democracy, both political and military leaders "play by the rules", even though, being part of government, they are not subject to government force. The President, for example, is not constrained by government - he runs government. He isn't constrained by the constitution - many countries have constitutions that are promptly ignored by political leaders. No - he is constrained by the prevailing political culture.

The bold part is where we disagree.
I don't see how you can say government is "forced"?
Everyone in both our countries agreed WAY BACK on a certain form of government.
We continue to agree on this by voting.

I will concede that government has taken a turn for the worse with politicians being bought and paid for...but that's why we have these minor annoyances today called the OWS and T-Party. These are simple reactions to the corrupt foundations of our governments today. I believe that ALL voting citizens feel the same to certain degrees. And as with all major changes, there will be discontent and arguing. But the changes will happen.

[Eran]

Everyone in both our countries agreed WAY BACK on a certain form of government.

Not really. At best, a majority of voting citizens agreed WAY BACK. Their vote barely obliges them. It certainly doesn't oblige us.

We continue to agree on this by voting.

How so? If I personally don't agree, how would you suggest I manifest that through my vote? Again, at best you could argue (and I would disagree) that the majority of voting citizens agree. This is far from "everyone". And it certainly allows the minority to be forced.

[Nunt]

I have never agreed and nobody else can prove otherwise.

[AndresSerrano]

Having to "live" socialism these days in one of the socialist paradises in Latin America, I find myself pondering what it is and what it does and how it affects a nation and a people.
The first manifestation of socialism (as I am currently experiencing it mind you) is there seems to be a WHOLE LOT of bill boards. I mean a WHOLE LOT OF BILL BOARDS. They tout everything from "Made in Socialism" to "The Socialist Production Cooperative" (shame they don't tell you what they produce, but they do have some buildings, empty them.) to the ever present dear leader kissing the flag, saluting the troops, kissing babies, posing with this mayor or that governor. so, as I am living it, BILL BOARDS are the FIRST THING in socialism.
Second thing seems to be garbage. Piled up, running down open sewers, cluttering lake sides, laying along the highway, smelling rotting. A whole lot of it.
Third thing seems to be empty, rotting buildings. Unpainted, peeling, forlorn looking, abandoned. an awful lot of padlocked gates one sees.
Then there are the fences, and iron bars across windows, and closed off streets with guards on them. Is that fourth, dunno, maybe not. Fourth seems to be clapped out cars, no, sorry, number four seems to be queues. People waiting for buses, people waiting for food, people waiting for some paper to be stamped, hell there are even queues (and that will tell you how appealing it is to enter a social paradise) to enter the country. Of course that is because to enter, you must have a form, a paper form. Apparently the Minister of the Popular Power of the Socialist Republic of Macondo, forgot that these forms, well, these forms get used up and eventually, well they run out. And of course if you don't have one, well, you can't enter until you have a form. there you have it, living the life, in a Socialist Paradise. Now the women? that is something else. Remind me to tell you about them sometime..... AND the manequins......

[Eauz]

First, we need to make an honest comparison. Somalia is in a poor continent that known poverty and war. Simply pointing to Somalia and finding that it's a worse place to live in than a Western developed country doesn't make much sense.
Second, there was a communist government pre-1991, but it became corrupt and totalitarian until the communist system finally collapsed into a civil war. The statist system collapsed and it left a real big mess behind. That mess isn't going to be solved instantly.
Third, not only is the country poor, it also lacks the proper instutions that prevent dictatorships and war from arising. It seems highly unlikely that an army colonel manages to overthrow a western government, but in Africa, this seems to be more rule than exception.
Fourth, there is a central government, but it seems powerless to stop the mess that the communist collapse left behind. So how anarchist is it really?

Imo, the case of Somalia is hardly an example of an anarchic society, let alone an ancap society. Sharia law is practiced often and this doesnt really coincide with ancap law. The central government may be ineffective, but that doesnt mean there are no states. The country has just fallen apart into some smaller states each ruled by a warlord. Warlords aren't really ancap you know. Thats just replacing one state with another.

So how bad is the country really performing?
Lets compare the life expectancy with some of its neighbours: http://www.bit.ly/KHop8G or GDP: http://www.bit.ly/KHoHwb

Conclusion: Somalia is more of an example of a failed state than an ancap society and doesn't seem to perform much worse than other (failed) states in the region. Somalia was a third world country before and is still a third world country today. Im not sure what extensive conclusions you want to draw from that.

So, because you want to change definitions to fit your ideal, it is not a minimalist libertarian state. It sounds like your ideology is very utopian.

[Rei Murasame]

I would also add that these are usually the sort of escapes that they do not afford to other ideologies that happen to manifest in third world countries. For example, can you imagine how libertarians might react if someone were to write a list of excuses for Vietnamese market-socialism, based on how far behind everyone else in terms of development they've started?

Of course not, since an ideology is judged on precisely its ability to handle such problems.

Plus, the fact that the Union of Islamic Courts appeared and did what it did, is almost a testament to the instability of anarchy, is it not?

[Eauz]

I would also add that these are usually the sort of escapes that they do not afford to other ideologies that happen to manifest in third world countries.

Of course. However, most libertarians do not want to look beyond their "rich nation". It is only an addition to the list of things to ignore. If a third world country is communist/fascist/liberal/conservative/statist, it is a sign of failure. However, if we bring up any idea of a connection between libertarianism and failure and it is not part of their understanding. For most, libertarian ideology is an ideology of success, because it was developed from elitists, originally. I agree, just as with most ideologies, that Somalia is not the ultimate example of libertarianism, but there are many close connections to the ideals of libertarians, but, because they do not fit with what libertarians are actually looking for, it will always be rejected. No, no, it seems that, just like communism, it can only exist when it is the perfect condition.

[Nunt]

I would also add that these are usually the sort of escapes that they do not afford to other ideologies that happen to manifest in third world countries. For example, can you imagine how libertarians might react if someone were to write a list of excuses for Vietnamese market-socialism, based on how far behind everyone else in terms of development they've started?
Of course not, since an ideology is judged on precisely its ability to handle such problems.

We have to make a fair comparison in both cases. We can't expect an African country to be democratic and rich overnight. Anyone who claims his ideology can succeed in that is lying. I am not sure what progress in Somalia people are expecting here. For example, we could compare North and South Korea who each started out with the same culture, institutions and level of welfare.

If we want to evaluate Somalia, we have to compare it to its neighbours. The graphs I showed demostrate that Somalia being torn apart by failed central planning and civil war, isn't actually performing so bad.

So sure, Somalia is still poor, there are a lot of injustices, etc. Did anyone really expect anything else? Did anyone really expect that their ideology could get Somalia's level of welfare up to western standards?

Plus, the fact that the Union of Islamic Courts appeared and did what it did, is almost a testament to the instability of anarchy, is it not?

It only points to he instability caused by government collapse, I don't see much libertarianism here. I only see a failed government and the mess that it left behind. People seem to be defining libertarianism as the absence of a central state. Well, theyre wrong. The collapse of a central state in such a country is unlikely to lead to libertarianism. This is not a weakness of libertarianism. Since of course it is just as unlikely that a good democratic government will appear there.

Nobody in Somalia decided, hey this government is not so good, lets strive for libertarianism. The existing state collapsed. You cant blame libertarianism that nothign good came from it. Sure no good libertarian state arised. But no good communist state arised either. No good democratic state arised either. So why would you think this particular case shows the weakness of libertarianism? If the central planning communist state worked ok, then it wouldnt have collapsed. If the democratic state worked ok, then the current central government would be in charge and we wouldnt have any problems.

What we can take away from the Somalian experience is that even without a central state, there doesnt seem to be a total collapse of the country. In fact, it doesn't seem to be performing much worse than its neighbours.

[Eran]

So, because you want to change definitions to fit your ideal, it is not a minimalist libertarian state. It sounds like your ideology is very utopian.

This is a perfect straw-man attack. Anarcho-capitalists don't merely call for the elimination of the state. If they did, there would be nothing to distinguish them from the many other variety of anarchists out there.

Anarcho-capitalists call for a society in which government (in the sense of a monopoly over the use of force) doesn't exists, and in which property rights (justly acquired) are respected by society.

In what possible sense did Somalia match the second criterion?

Our ideology is utopian in exactly the same way that an 18th-century abolitionism or a 16th-century democracy were. It is ahead of its time, and marks a sharp improvement, both in terms of justice and prosperity, over the existing system.

I would also add that these are usually the sort of escapes that they do not afford to other ideologies that happen to manifest in third world countries. For example, can you imagine how libertarians might react if someone were to write a list of excuses for Vietnamese market-socialism, based on how far behind everyone else in terms of development they've started?

That's a fair point. I think we cannot consistently attack an idealist socialist merely because every single attempt to implement socialism failed utterly.

That is why I prefer holding such debates on logical/deductive/a-priori grounds, rather than resorting to historic examples.

[Eauz]

This is a perfect straw-man attack. Anarcho-capitalists don't merely call for the elimination of the state. If they did, there would be nothing to distinguish them from the many other variety of anarchists out there.

Anarcho-capitalists call for a society in which government (in the sense of a monopoly over the use of force) doesn't exists, and in which property rights (justly acquired) are respected by society.

In what possible sense did Somalia match the second criterion?

Our ideology is utopian in exactly the same way that an 18th-century abolitionism or a 16th-century democracy were. It is ahead of its time, and marks a sharp improvement, both in terms of justice and prosperity, over the existing system.

Just look at its economy. Private property is protected within the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Somalia

It has as strong agricultural, manufacturing, telecommunication, finance & airline industry in the country. This means that there is private property in the country. So, no only does it have a minimalist government, there is local government and private property that is protected. Get over it, Somalia is a very reasonable example of libertarianism, no matter how you define it.

[Eran]

Property rights are far from being properly protected. Such protection would enable, for example, foreign corporations to invest in Somalian property with the confidence that their investments are secure from physical invasion.

Given the civil war and uncertainty regarding future government controls, no such confidence is possible.

Political instability is inconsistent with strong protection of property rights.

[Vera Politica]

Unfortunately, Eran, Libertarian governments/societies are politically unstable.

[Soixante-Retard]

Unfortunately, Eran, Libertarian governments/societies are politically unstable.

Vera, for the sake of argument let's grant your assertion that "Libertarian governments/societies are politically unstable". Are you seriously suggesting that communist governments/societies are more politically stable vis-à-vis libertarian governments/societies?

It is not a case of libertarian governments/societies are categorically unstable/stable vis-à-vis communist governments/societies, but which is more stable marginally. History demonstrates that more libertarian governments/societies (where private property is respected) are more stable than communist government/societies. There is nothing "inevitable" about communism. Marx predicted that communism would be emerge in the most bourgeois societies, which Marx mistook for "instability". But instead, it emerged through violent revolution in the least bourgeois and most unstable society - feudalist Russia.

The fact is, societies where private property is respected lends to more stability, not less - as you asserted.