5 ms·

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 thin

by 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"?
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    I guess I focused in on you placing statelessness as the primary condition. Statelessness isn't the goal or an end; it's a natural consequence of building a society without hierarchy.
    - borism 16y ago
      I guess I focused in on you placing statelessness as the primary condition. Statelessness isn't the goal or an end; it's a natural consequence of building a society without hierarchy. Well, first of all I didn't place statelessness as the primary condition. By "state-wide" I meant "country-wide" or "land-wide", not "government-wide". And secondly, I don't know of any other examples, but in my own country's history we had an anarchist society which had clearly defined hierarchy (that doesn't mean that people couldn't move between different levels of that hierarchy): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory_(Ukraine) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory_(Ukraine) true, it wasn't probably a true anarchist society, but it is as close as it gets, again as I said, don't know any better.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        > Well, first of all I didn't place statelessness as the primary condition. I apologize for misrepresenting your position, then. I still don't fully understand, but this is getting way offtopic anyway. > it is as close as it gets, I'm not ultra-familliar with that particular example, but there is a big list here (It's one of them): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchist_communities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchist_communitie...
yummyfajitas 16y ago
With your definition, anarchy is mainly a function of where you draw your borders. If you draw your border around North America you find anarchy (the law varies as you move from Mexico to the US). Even within the US, laws vary widely. But if you draw the border around Somaliland, you don't get anarchy (Somaliland has more or less consistent laws). I'm also not sure why you don't consider a warlord to be the government. In what way does a warlord differ from a government?
- borism 16y ago
  With your definition, anarchy is mainly a function of where you draw your borders. yes, if you draw the borders arbitrarily. But it wasn't me who drew Somalia on the World Map. In what way does a warlord differ from a government? in what way feudal lord differs from a government? well, for one he's more likely to be enforcing his will, than any widely recognized laws.
  - gills 16y ago
    Not arguing with you, just some thoughts... 'Government' does not imply any particular form, nor does it imply consent or participation of the governed; the warlord model has had a pretty good run throughout history. And yeah, none of us drew the border, but neither did the folks who live there...so there figuring it out now. Better late than never, right?
    - borism 16y ago
      'Government' does not imply any particular form, nor does it imply consent or participation of the governed I didn't claim it implies consent, but there is a pretty clear distinction between warlord or feudal lord and "the government", at least to me. Genghis Khan was pretty powerful warlord, controlling much of Eurasia at one point, but he didn't have the government and he wasn't governing. There's something else that you need to have in order to be considered The Government than just the ability to kill many and collect tax from many. But I'm too tired to elaborate any further right now. This thread is getting too long anyway. And yeah, none of us drew the border, but neither did the folks who live there...so there figuring it out now. Better late than never, right? actually it was largely us, the so-called "Western Civilization" that drew Somalia borders as they are recognized today. My point was that we already agree where that border is supposed to be (and nobody seriously recognizes Somaliland).

by borism 16y ago

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"?
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  I guess I focused in on you placing statelessness as the primary condition. Statelessness isn't the goal or an end; it's a natural consequence of building a society without hierarchy.
  - borism 16y ago
    I guess I focused in on you placing statelessness as the primary condition. Statelessness isn't the goal or an end; it's a natural consequence of building a society without hierarchy. Well, first of all I didn't place statelessness as the primary condition. By "state-wide" I meant "country-wide" or "land-wide", not "government-wide". And secondly, I don't know of any other examples, but in my own country's history we had an anarchist society which had clearly defined hierarchy (that doesn't mean that people couldn't move between different levels of that hierarchy): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory_(Ukraine) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory_(Ukraine) true, it wasn't probably a true anarchist society, but it is as close as it gets, again as I said, don't know any better.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      > Well, first of all I didn't place statelessness as the primary condition. I apologize for misrepresenting your position, then. I still don't fully understand, but this is getting way offtopic anyway. > it is as close as it gets, I'm not ultra-familliar with that particular example, but there is a big list here (It's one of them): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchist_communities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchist_communitie...

yummyfajitas 16y ago

With your definition, anarchy is mainly a function of where you draw your borders. If you draw your border around North America you find anarchy (the law varies as you move from Mexico to the US). Even within the US, laws vary widely. But if you draw the border around Somaliland, you don't get anarchy (Somaliland has more or less consistent laws). I'm also not sure why you don't consider a warlord to be the government. In what way does a warlord differ from a government?

borism 16y ago
With your definition, anarchy is mainly a function of where you draw your borders. yes, if you draw the borders arbitrarily. But it wasn't me who drew Somalia on the World Map. In what way does a warlord differ from a government? in what way feudal lord differs from a government? well, for one he's more likely to be enforcing his will, than any widely recognized laws.
- gills 16y ago
  Not arguing with you, just some thoughts... 'Government' does not imply any particular form, nor does it imply consent or participation of the governed; the warlord model has had a pretty good run throughout history. And yeah, none of us drew the border, but neither did the folks who live there...so there figuring it out now. Better late than never, right?
  - borism 16y ago
    'Government' does not imply any particular form, nor does it imply consent or participation of the governed I didn't claim it implies consent, but there is a pretty clear distinction between warlord or feudal lord and "the government", at least to me. Genghis Khan was pretty powerful warlord, controlling much of Eurasia at one point, but he didn't have the government and he wasn't governing. There's something else that you need to have in order to be considered The Government than just the ability to kill many and collect tax from many. But I'm too tired to elaborate any further right now. This thread is getting too long anyway. And yeah, none of us drew the border, but neither did the folks who live there...so there figuring it out now. Better late than never, right? actually it was largely us, the so-called "Western Civilization" that drew Somalia borders as they are recognized today. My point was that we already agree where that border is supposed to be (and nobody seriously recognizes Somaliland).