5 ms·

The state is hardly the "guarantor of justice and peace." Governments use deadly force and have created the greatest horrors of humanity. In the 20th century

The state is hardly the "guarantor of justice and peace." Governments use deadly force and have created the greatest horrors of humanity. In the 20th century alone the state created the Holocaust, deliberately starved tens of millions to death from the Ukraine to China, and obliterated entire cities with nuclear and firebomb weapons. Indeed, around the world today, as many people are oppressed by state power as liberated by it.

barrkel 16y ago
The state's justification is as guarantor of justice and peace - even broken regimes have laws and courts. Certainly, some states are better at it than others, but I don't think the anarchy of a Somalia is better. I believe the statistics hold out that, in terms of proportion of human population suffering, modern times are better than all historical times, and are continuously improving. If we had a mechanism that improved states, that worked reliably in changing oppressive governments, I'd support it. I don't think we have such a mechanism, though. In short, I support improving states where possible, I deplore bad states, and I think the alternatives to states that we have thus far seen in history are worse than states.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I don't think the anarchy of a Somalia is better. Somalia isn't anarchy. It's several states, some of which are very bad (Islamic theocracies and kleptocracies). That said, it's unclear that Somalia's current set of several competing governments is worse than the single government they had before, or worse than Somalia's neighbors. http://namcub.accela-labs.com/pdf/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf http://namcub.accela-labs.com/pdf/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
  - borism 16y ago
    Somalia isn't anarchy. even the link you provide begins with: Could anarchy be good for Somalia’s development? yet you still would argue to the contrary - that lawless warlords-dominated failed state isn't anarchy?
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Anarchy is lack of a government. As you acknowledge, parts of Somalia are dominated by lawless warlords. They are the government. You also seem unaware of Somaliland (one of the countries Somalia split into), which is closer to a republic (not a fully representative one) than a "warlord dominated" state. The Mujahadeen region (before they were conquered) was also rather far from a warlord dominated state (they were an Islamist theocracy).
      - borism 16y ago
        Anarchy has many definitions. For me, the most important one is the absence of state-wide law. Whether the law is enforced by government, warlords (I don't think you can call them "government" by any stretch) or the people is secondary to the definition of anarchy in my opinion. Now as far as I know there's absolutely no state-wide rule of law in Somalia - Somaliland might have something, some parts practice Sharia to some extent, but most of the country is ruled by arbitrary enforcement of will of whatever warlord happens to control that part of the country at any point. oh BTW, actually I found out about Somaliland just recently, in January I think, but thanks for reminding me anyway.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        There is a large distinction between anarchy and the lack of a state. While statelessness is necessary for anarchy, it is not sufficient. That said, you can have whatever opinion you want, but when your opinion goes against hundreds of years of political thought and literature, people will be slightly confused.
        borism 16y ago
        There is a large distinction between anarchy and the lack of a state. isn't this exactly what I said, or are you not able to distinguish between "lack of state" and "absence of state-wide law"?
        16y ago
Groxx 16y ago
So we should abolish all forms of governmental power and go for anarchy / literal mob rule, because that's worked so well in the past? Every form of government has downsides, has abuses / abusers. Making a statement like you did implies you think they're fundamentally wrong and should be replaced by... what?

barrkel 16y ago

The state's justification is as guarantor of justice and peace - even broken regimes have laws and courts. Certainly, some states are better at it than others, but I don't think the anarchy of a Somalia is better. I believe the statistics hold out that, in terms of proportion of human population suffering, modern times are better than all historical times, and are continuously improving. If we had a mechanism that improved states, that worked reliably in changing oppressive governments, I'd support it. I don't think we have such a mechanism, though. In short, I support improving states where possible, I deplore bad states, and I think the alternatives to states that we have thus far seen in history are worse than states.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
I don't think the anarchy of a Somalia is better. Somalia isn't anarchy. It's several states, some of which are very bad (Islamic theocracies and kleptocracies). That said, it's unclear that Somalia's current set of several competing governments is worse than the single government they had before, or worse than Somalia's neighbors. http://namcub.accela-labs.com/pdf/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf http://namcub.accela-labs.com/pdf/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
- borism 16y ago
  Somalia isn't anarchy. even the link you provide begins with: Could anarchy be good for Somalia’s development? yet you still would argue to the contrary - that lawless warlords-dominated failed state isn't anarchy?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Anarchy is lack of a government. As you acknowledge, parts of Somalia are dominated by lawless warlords. They are the government. You also seem unaware of Somaliland (one of the countries Somalia split into), which is closer to a republic (not a fully representative one) than a "warlord dominated" state. The Mujahadeen region (before they were conquered) was also rather far from a warlord dominated state (they were an Islamist theocracy).
    - borism 16y ago
      Anarchy has many definitions. For me, the most important one is the absence of state-wide law. Whether the law is enforced by government, warlords (I don't think you can call them "government" by any stretch) or the people is secondary to the definition of anarchy in my opinion. Now as far as I know there's absolutely no state-wide rule of law in Somalia - Somaliland might have something, some parts practice Sharia to some extent, but most of the country is ruled by arbitrary enforcement of will of whatever warlord happens to control that part of the country at any point. oh BTW, actually I found out about Somaliland just recently, in January I think, but thanks for reminding me anyway.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        There is a large distinction between anarchy and the lack of a state. While statelessness is necessary for anarchy, it is not sufficient. That said, you can have whatever opinion you want, but when your opinion goes against hundreds of years of political thought and literature, people will be slightly confused.
        borism 16y ago
        There is a large distinction between anarchy and the lack of a state. isn't this exactly what I said, or are you not able to distinguish between "lack of state" and "absence of state-wide law"?
        16y ago

Groxx 16y ago

So we should abolish all forms of governmental power and go for anarchy / literal mob rule, because that's worked so well in the past? Every form of government has downsides, has abuses / abusers. Making a statement like you did implies you think they're fundamentally wrong and should be replaced by... what?