Lol. Only you guys could simultaneously conclude that something is no big deal and trivially true while simultaneously continuing to repudiate it and claim it's impossible. Statists are so entertaining.

Maybe it's "microanarchy" that is no big deal and trivially true but "macroanarchy" is somehow totally different, hence necessitating an Intelligent Monopolist to create all this order we see everywhere. Sure, this market thing could provide for cheesburgers and blue jeans and cars and TVs and title insurance and stuff, but for the really magical stuff, like laying down asphalt, or deciding whether or not killing and raping is wrong, why then you need a Government of the Gaps to produce these things that the poor incompetent boobs in the market can't.

Enjoy your demon-haunted world.

market failure vs. governmen failure - the endless cycle - joy of joys

the problem with some of us maybe is that we don't blindly trust in the market while you do - you want to believe

I'm not an ACist but I trust the market 100%. It's people I don't trust.

Cody

as bad or better than this guy and this guy

again, if it actually doesnt count i dont know why you fear this dissent.

1) I agree its largely anarchistic. I dont agree its largely capitalistic. I dont agree its fully or none of either.

2) there is no such thing as a functional state. if in theory there were a functional state this obviously already implies it meets the mark. this is what we dispute. in addition, empirically, as far as history has shown, all "functional states" that you probably think of exist only in areas with the largest economic freedom throughout their history.

We are saying, however, that if there is more government control, whether democratic, communal, or dictatorially structured, ceteris paribus, they will be worse off.

*edit in bold thanks to Borodog

Ceteris paribus.

That statement can be read two ways, and Im not sure which you mean. "The market is made of people, so in an imperfect world even a near-perfect system like the market can fail", or "The market is such a good system it can overcome the failings of people". The former is reality imo.

People in horrible poverty because the government spent all the wealth it could get it's hands on to attempt not to collapse: Not a problem with anarchocapitalism or libertarian philosophy, it's a problem with statism and the after effects of it.

People with very high time preferences and no government resorting to looting, murdering, and other non-voluntary acts as well as the UN and US also attempting to institute governments that the people refuse to recognize the legitmacy of all the while escalting the violence: Not an example of anarchocapitalism. There is government intervention and more importantly, there is little cooperation, free trade, property rights, contract, etc. Even if the government wasn't involved that would put the "A" in there, but the "C" is most definetly not.

People eventually deciding the cooperation>>>conflict, beginning to respect property rights, contracts, division of labor which as led to foriegn investments and higher standards of living then under the state and under their statist nieghbors: A success for anarchocapitalism, free markets, libertarian philosophy, and Austrian economics.

Governments don't create wealth, markets do. The only argument for a state is that without certain regulations of the state in the market the market would produce horrible outcomes. Now we see a stateless society (in fact one that has been historically stateless with the exception of when western powers have attempted to force it on them) creating wealth without government facilliating it.

Gone are the doomsday theories that say government oversight is needed or else the market (and society) collapses. Hopefully now the statists will agree that ACism is possible and sustainable, something MANY of the statists have disagreed with in the past.

I don't fear it, I just don't feel like wasting my time debating Somalia if, when it turns out that Somalia's worse off than it was, the goalposts get moved.

Somalia = good example? Yes or no?

Hold on buckaroo - you're ready to declare Somalia's socioeconomic environment "stable" already?

Good example of what?

This actually something I wanted to ask about, I didn't notice anywhere in the article about rates of violence. Either way it is becoming *more* stable, is it not? Perhaps it would be more stable if the UN and the US stopped trying to impose governments that the people don't want and have never peacefully lived under.

God this thread is stupid. For something to be "anarcho capitalist", it needs to

- be free from the government for a long period of time (anarchy)
- have respect for property and free trade (capitalism)

Otherwise it's not anarcho capitalist, duh!

The stupidity and shoehorning inherent to this position should be obvious. OBVIOUSLY if everyone is respecting property rights and thus both human rights and contracts, then society is going to be fairly functional (though I would argue much less functional than one with a government, but that's a separate argument). It's a completely circular argument made by a bunch of jokers.

LOL at basing this on a single stupid, biased article. Go read the wikipedia Somalia article to see how ridiculously lobsided the OP's article is. For example, there are regions of government in the country which are semi functional. Is any effort made to exclude these? Some areas under the control of brutal warlords or Islamic courts imposing Sharia law have improved in stability. Other metrics not mentioned in the OP have actually gotten worse. Foreign aid is feeding and providing essential medical support for many. Civil war continues to rage in parts of the country between private militias and Islamic power brokers. Where relative peace was establish, it was because warlords or islamic fundamentalists ruled over an area (and much of this has since descended into civil war). It's a nasty place to live, 16 years after the government disappeared. How long exactly is this anarchy business supposed to take? The other point to note is that statistics compared are from during the very worst period under Somalia's government, just before the collapse of the economy and government (late 80s), coupled with severe drought which caused humanitarian crises.

If you read impartial accounts, such as wikipedia, doctors without borders ( http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/somalia.cfm ), you'll see that Somalia continues to be in a terrible state, even compared to other African nations.

If anything, Somalia might be a good example of a possible transition from a government state to an(admittedly oxymoronic term) anarchic state. What remains to be seen, and likely won't be known for quite some time, is whether the transition will continue, whether a government (or many governments) will form, whether the economy will grow/thrive/survive, whether any economic growth can be fairly attributable to the free market given the large amounts of aid from both non-governmental and governmental foreign agencies.

Yes it could. I also don't think *any* anarchic state is particularly a good thing for Somalia. If it's culture is one that doesn't respect private property, contract, and trade then it's going to be [censored] regardless.

Anyways, it's not even a question of *if* Somalia can be stateless. They've been a stateless society until western powers attempted to institute it on them. This mysteriously coincided with chaos.
Well as long as the US and UN continue pumping money and support into governments that the Somalis don't even recognize as legitmate there remains the chance that a state will form. When they leave sure there is a chance even then states could be formed, but that runs counter to the history of their culture.
"Somalia's pastoral economy is now stronger than that of either neighboring Kenya or Ethiopia. It is the largest exporter of livestock of any East African country. Telecommunications have burgeoned in Somalia; a call from a mobile phone is cheaper in Somalia than anywhere else in Africa. A small number of international investors are finding that the level of security of property and contract in Somalia warrants doing business there. Among these companies are Dole, BBC, the courier DHL, British Airways, General Motors, and Coca Cola, which recently opened a large bottling plant in Mogadishu. A 5-star Ambassador Hotel is operating in Hargeisa, and three new universities are fully functional: Amoud University (1997) in Borama, and Mogadishu University (1997), and University of Benadir (2002) in Mogadishu."

What of these have been provided by foriegn aid (not rhetorical or sarcastic, I don't know much about the area but I'm assuming this is a market success)?

The former was my meaning.

Cody

Good job reading his mind. That's always a good substitute for an argument.