paulieg

anarchy is the mother of order. anyone who has ever lived or done business without being subject to government oversight (or having the means to counteract it) knows this to be true from experience. everyone else has no standing to claim otherwise because they're hypothesizing and supporting their hypotheses with intellectual onanism.

-p

paulieg

nothing to do with economics. singapore is an example of a multi-generational nepotistic benevolent dictatorship that works very well in terms of creating value and development. it's repulsive and immoral (to me), but you can't say that it doesn't work economically and the sheeple of singapore don't seem to mind, having traded their freedom for short-term material wealth.

to a real anarchist, the economic outcomes of establishing an anarchist society are immaterial. economic freedom is integral to personal freedom and there's a good chance a free-market anarchist economy would work well, but freedom trumps wealth.

-p

paulieg

+1000. touche.

-p

paulieg

there's nothing wrong with *a* government, as long as you can voluntarily associate with it or disassociate from it. every group has a means to enable collective decision making and there's nothing wrong with that. the problem is *one* government maintaining its monopoly on governance and coercing people into being governed through the exercise of its monopoly on the use of coercive force.

-p

paulieg

parliamentarism is betrayal - anyone who feeds the beast is doomed to lie with it in the biblical sense. moreover, no amount of education can turn sheeple into people. the desire to be free above all else is something you either feel viscerally or not. it can not be explained or taught any more than the joy of free flight can be explained to a penguin.

-p

paulieg

firstly, somalia is a bad example. it is not an anarchist community, it's a failed state. the results you see are a consequence of said failure in a timeframe and under conditions which did not permit an alternative to develop. this is (one of the reasons) why i'm not an insurrectionist (any more), as seductive as that way of thinking might be.

secondly, why on earth is it someone else's problem that these sailors got kidnapped? their security is in the interest of themselves, their families and their employers and the costs of ensuring it should be borne by them. consequently, the arrangements for it should have been made by them as well. if your freedom isn't important enough for you to do what's required to maintain it, why on earth would i or anyone else care about it?

in a voluntarist society with collective group responsibility, the groups these pirates associate with would naturally be responsible for their actions and would thus be incented to prevent such actions. this is handly, because their local community is best placed to do that in the same way that complex industries like banking are best placed to do it - they just need the correct incentives to be in place.

-p