Slashdot Mirror
Somali Pirates Open Up a "Stock Exchange"
reginaldo writes to clue us that pirates in Somalia have opened up a cooperative in Haradheere, where investors can pay money or guns to help their favorite pirate crew for a share of the piracy profits. "'Four months ago, during the monsoon rains, we decided to set up this stock exchange. We started with 15 "maritime companies" and now we are hosting 72. Ten of them have so far been successful at hijacking,' Mohammed [a wealthy former pirate who took a Reuters reporter to the facility] said. ... Piracy investor Sahra Ibrahim, a 22-year-old divorcee, was lined up with others waiting for her cut of a ransom pay-out after one of the gangs freed a Spanish tuna fishing vessel. 'I am waiting for my share after I contributed a rocket-propelled grenade for the operation,' she said, adding that she got the weapon from her ex-husband in alimony. 'I am really happy and lucky. I have made $75,000 in only 38 days since I joined the "company."'"
Have we got a great deal for you!!
Behold the mighty reach of Capitalism! The waves crash and the seas may boil, but the market reaches into the hearts of even the most desperate!
-|BlackErtai|-
Do you need an interactive website? Is telecommuting OK?
I want to invest in the Shark riding pirates somebody mentioned about in the thread about the net cannon.
'I am really happy and lucky. I have made $75,000 in only 38 days since I joined the "company."
Sounds eerily familiar to the emails I find in my spam box. I wonder if the investors have to participate in 2 out of 3 other pirate offers to qualify.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Now half of my dream equation is complete; however, my plans will truly come to fruition the day there is a Ninja stock exchange. Then the eternal hypothetical fight of the ages past can be settled, "Who would win in a stock trade battle, Ninja's or Pirates?" (btw, by settled I mean the Ninjas will trade the shit out of the Pirates...)
Ho ho, all together.
Hoist the colors high!
Heave ho, thieves and beggers
Never shall we die!
They're freaking pirates! This woman is an idiot if she expects any money from this. It's not like she's seeding a movie!
a) be poor and out of work ... watching the rich pirates having a good life (who are sharing a little of their money to the locals)
a) die on a overfilled boat to Europe / get sent back if you manage to get there.
c) become a pirate
'I am really happy and lucky. I have made $75,000 in only 38 days since I joined the "company."' -- Piracy investor Sahra Ibrahim
She's sowing the wind. Wouldn't want to be her come reap-time.
Perhaps we can send some folks from the BSA and RIAA over there to educate them about actual, real piracy. Might help them to stop confusing the term with copyright infringement.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
what happens when you have a totally free economy. On the other hand with a completely regulated economy you end stifling entrepreneurship. And with a poorly regulated economy people screw up because they think if what they were doing was wrong there would be rules against it. Lesson is that we need a properly regulated economy, but that is where my insight ends and I revert to criticizing what other people doing I can't be wrong.
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
for everyone but the pirates. Participation in this scheme would be a criminal conspiracy to commit piracy, kidnapping, theft, and hostage-taking. Even if the pirates' plan is to swindle money from the investors and not pay out anything it is still a crime to participate in a scheme where the intent is to commit a crime.
The only reason the pirates have gotten away with their actions so far is because they are outside the jurisdiction of any interested government. People who participate in this scheme from pretty much anywhere but Somalia are likely to find themselves in quite a lot of legal trouble.
Just a brief read of the article about the Dutch East India Company makes me wonder just how different the two really are.
Legitimacy as a company seems to be determined by how well you succeed and how long you've been around, more than your morals or ethics.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
This is unregulated laissez faire capitalism at its finest. I'm so proud, little Somolia is growing up.
By supporting the pirate industry, they give jobs and new opportunities to the local people. But this is not the only reason why we should support them. They do an amazing job reverting the global warming. Every ecologically responsible person should invest in this stock exchange.
In unrelated news, it is rumored that the Rainbow Warrior will join their fleet.
How you got modded up is beyond me...
Sorry to tell the investors this -- but since they are now all complicit in murder,piracy and being (registered) members of a criminal organization this more or less legally opens them up to off-shore shelling by naval warships.
... but what kind of a maniac gives his ex-wife an RPG in alimony?
He's just lucky she decided to 'invest' it, rather than go all Blues Brothers on him.
A: I start at +2 due to excellent reputation, have not been modded here yet.
B: We both have the comedian achievement. You should understand.
C: Its funny because its true.
Sounds like socialism to me...
Probably. Too many Smiths in history.
Infuriate left and right
...in the Sirens.
I'd say they may well get their money back, plus much more. The pirates aren't the same guys as the scam artists. These guys are getting some serious money, but they do need investment upfront to fund the operations... Just because they are criminals in one respect, doesn't necessarily mean they are in all respects.
Because it's cheaper to pay out a small percentage on an insurance claim then it is to lose vessels, cargo and civil suits over the dead crew. Of course in the long run the correct answer is to do what the American's did and run anti-terrorist operations against them but not many ships fly the American flag anymore even those owned by American companies.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
How would it save any lives? Very few hostages die. That would be bad for business; pirates don't get ransom for dead crew or sunken ships, and if they tried to, their negotiating credibility wold sink just as fast.
Infuriate left and right
Ahh, what a perfect example of good old free market capitalism at work. Somalia: its a libertarian dream come true! How perfect that my captcha for this post is "markets."
I think you're missing the point. This is not something Wall Street bankers are going to be investing in. The kind of people chipping in to this operation are probably the sort of people who are just as likely as the pirates themselves to not take being cheated so well, and express that dissatisfaction with automatic weapons.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
It's obviously not rule of law. You're trying an implied attack on the United States' economic model, which is heavily dependent on the rule of law.
The government can't save you.
People argue left, and right and liberal and conservative. Here we have a group of people who went off the liberal end of anarchy and came out on the other side of unfettered capitalism. Soon there will be moguls, and the moguls will need a stable society to protect their winnings. The imposition of social order will be difficult at first, but they're heavily armed and well motivated.
Ah, there really is nothing new under the sun.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
This is unregulated laissez faire capitalism at its finest. I'm so proud, little Somolia is growing up.
Wrong. There is partial regulation.
In a truly unregulated market the vessels losing millions of dollars would instead pay millions of dollars to have all of the pirates killed.
But they cannot do that because they are regulated.
This is nothing more than an example of uneven regulation (which is usually a sign of corruption, I'm looking at you united nations).
Piracy is not illegal in Somalia. Once again like a typical ignorant American, you make the mistake of arrogantly thinking U.S. law applies everywhere outside your declining nation. Stick to playing your video games and stuffing your obese body with junk food. I myself am going to invest $100.
Guess we should all calm down and order something from Costa Nostra Pizza.
[Snow Crash reference for those that don't know.]
So if I can pay them in guns, any ideas where I can get some exploding AK-47s?
I read it as an implied attack on anarcho-capitalism, which is not the United States' economic model.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
C: Its funny because its true.
No it's not. Even the most die-hard capital 'L' Libertarian would agree that the enforcement of property and human rights are a legitimate function of the state. That would include preventing assholes with AK-47s from holding property and human beings hostage until a nice fat ransom is paid.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The murdered crew members...not so much. Being happy and feeling lucky on the pain and suffering of others is wretched, no matter who you are or what the business is.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
After reading that article, I never want to hear 'they've been driven to it by foreign overfishing and waste dumping' again.
Arm the crew of the container and cargo ships with 20mm cannons to repel the pirates - shoot holes in their boats and let them become shark bait. A few dead pirates and, all of a sudden, the "company," will cease to exist. I have no love for piracy and I believe that the world is too leniant on them. They know this too, that is why they continue.
Why would anyone think it's a good idea to give their money to professional thieves?
This is not something Wall Street bankers are going to be investing in
That's too bad, it might be a more solid investment than subprime mortgages and credit default swaps ;) I wonder what Jim Cramer is bullish on them or not?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It's obviously not rule of law.
And what are regulations if not laws?
Somalia rocks!
I got an email from some guy in Nigeria who says I've come into some money. This sounds like a great investment!
BTW, I've also got an offer on a bridge in New York.
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
Consider it an investment with the intent to sell short.
This already happens. If you'll recall the occasion recently, US Navy SEALS took some of these bastards to school.
In most cases ships will try to repel pirates with non-lethal technologies, which is god-damned retarded. They need to send every one of these animals to the bottom of the ocean.
Good on them for including the general population. Foreign business has been gouging Somalian waters for fish & dumping toxic shit in their waters for years. The bulk of the Somalian populace considers this to be a fair means of compensation from the criminals who rob them, and I'm not far behind them.
In a truly unregulated market the vessels losing millions of dollars would instead pay millions of dollars to have all of the pirates killed.
It could be that it is cheaper just to wear the occasional losses.
So, how long do you think it will be until they rewrite the history books and become the freedom fighters who put down the unlawful regime?
To crack down on insider trading and other white collar crime.
Unregulated laissez faire capitalism doesn't include taking your competitors money at gunpoint.
They're businesspeople. Criminal businesspeople, to be sure. But the framework in which we should look at this problem thusly is different form the framework in which analyze fundamentalist-terrorism issues.
Okay, okay, Somalia has both going on...
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Does this exchange have GPS coordinates?
There's laissez-faire capitalism on the government level, too, I guess, as nobody stands above governments to regulate them. And since there exists bad governments, and since every government oppresses its citizenry on some level, clearly the entire endeavor is a failure and we need god to regulate government, and then something to regulate god.
They're freaking pirates! This woman is an idiot if she expects any money from this. It's not like she's seeding a movie!
One man's pirate is another's Robin Hood of the High Seas.
It's not necessarily true that you should expect a person who commits some crimes against some people (even violent crimes) to commit any crime against any person. Cultures across human history have survived off of raiding fat, rich neighbors and have not collapsed due to infighting and lack of ability to trust your neighbor. These "stock exchanges" were people contribute weapons for money are not necessarily any less reliable than a Scythian making a family member a good saddle before they rode off to sack the Romans, hoping for a cut of the pillage. People can be utterly trustworthy to their neighbors while being utter bastards to outsiders. It's really the historical norm.
Now, if these people were criminals that attacked their own people, then it would be pretty strange to expect fair dealing, but as long as "investors" and "entrepreneurs" see themselves as part of the same group, then there's no reason for an "investor" to expect to be treated as poorly as the pirates' victims. After all, they aren't "criminals" within their community.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Eat your heart out pirate bay!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
That is extremely unlikely.
The latest random alone was $3 million.
I have no doubt you could finance a small army in Somalia for $3 million.
That is the best way for society. But in each individual case it's better to pay the ransom. Furthermore, it's a lot easier to measure "hostages successfully ransomed" than "pirate attacks that never occurred."
Baby steps, baby steps
Give them time, and they will come to us
was a stinking hand grenade...
Some girls get all the luck.
Work Safe Porn
This has always puzzled me about lie-bertarians. To a dispassionate eye, the line appears to be so random and convenient only for the small-medium capitalists who incidentally provide the basis for this ideology to begin with. Why is it government function to protect only property, and human rights (which conveniently exclude the rights to basic food, shelter, job, and health care) ? And why the property is so sacred, of all the things a human being needs, such as "true" freedom (not just freedom to die from hunger), good health, or a family?
Interestingly, this is a slightly distorted echo of how the notion of corporate structures and shared equity originated.
In the 1600's there was a bunch of money to be made in buying ships, equipping them and sending them to the East Indies to buy spices to bring back and sell.
But ships and equipment were so expensive that it was hard for anyone to rake together the capital to put forth an expedition, even though there would be a huge payoff at the end. So the idea of a 'joint stock company' was borne so people could club together to buy the ship and the necessaries. The Dutch East India Trading company effectively became the first public company in the world and paid an 18% dividend for over two centuries. Dutch law was made to allow pieces of the company to be bought and sold on a 'bourse' (house). Other people realised you could use the same idea for purposes other than buying ships. And here we are today, turned full circle albeit with more nefarious intent.
But interesting that modern equity-based capitalism was invented by the Dutch.
I'd say the U.S. should contribute a few cruise missiles to this effort. I'm sure "delivery" could be easily arranged.
I think you win the crazy Libertarian strawman contest for this discussion.
I was going to say something about GP going too far, but... wow, that's just amazing.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Why bother?
Modern navies won't fire on pirates.
Look at the British Navy's lack of action as they watched a British boat (and crew) being kidnapped. While the British navy tried to deny this, it was leaked by a sailor.
Actually, I think it does.
This privateering is a prime example of Merchant capitalism. Only, in this case, it is a ship and its cargo being exchanged for money, rather than, say, a barrel of corn. Since there is no bartering involved in the exhange, this makes it a capitalism.
Now, on the other hand, what most people think of today as capitalism, is actually industrial capitalism, which is the exchange of services for currency, which is then exchanged for goods.
0100010001101001011001 0100100000011010010110 1110001000000110000100 1000000110011001101001 0111001001100101
Out of curiosity, does anyone know why these ships aren't arming themselves?
There are precedents in maritime law with regards to what differentiates a merchant ship and a military vessel. Also, having weapons on board presents many difficulties with respect to ships that port in many different countries with different customs and laws that apply to people that come into the country with arms.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
How about we contribute a 4 week bombing campaign on that place with a fleet of B-52's? I wonder what that would trade for?
Piracy and high-finance work very well together.
Why else would they contribute to politicians?
Yes, you are.
It's generally aa bad idea bringing more arms to a place where there are already too many.
Take a look at Afghanistan. Who did the most to arm those people? Right -- 'twas CIA, at the time they hoped to give the Soviets a run for their money. And now...
The pirates will find a way to get hold of those M2 Brownings (heck, they even could bribe the underpaid crews of the very ships those guns are supposed to defend).
Blindly throwing arms into an armed conflict rarelly solves it.
Its the new Nigerian scams.
They don't even pretend they are not robbing their customers!
Every investor that invests in this stock market should be arrested for piracy by proxy.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Hmmm...Perhaps we could "invest" a couple of helfire missiles for their next trading session, they really "bring down the house" as they say. Seriously though, now we have women and non-combatants supplying weapons to the pirates. Can someone else please explain why the navies of the world haven't parked offshore and leveled the pirate towns with naval artillery? Its too bad that the United States doesn't keep those Iowa class battleships on the active registry anymore, a few hours of shelling from one of those and any pirate town would be a smoking ruin.
The shipping companies(not to mention the boys at Lloyd's) would kick up a hell of a fuss if that plan were adopted.
The shippers aren't there to achieve foreign policy objectives, satisfy Law and Order enthusiasts, or even coddle bleeding hearts. They are there to make money by shipping stuff. The reason that they aren't bothering to do all that much about piracy is that, at least at present, it is cheaper to just suck it up, pay the occasional ransom, and carry on with business than it would be to do anything terribly aggressive.
A plan that involves blowing up entire ships(not cheap to replace) and their cargoes(also not cheap, and you'd better believe that whoever paid the shipper to have that stuff shipped would be pissed if it got lost) would be, from the shippers' perspective, vastly more expensive than just ignoring the problem.
as long as they pay taxes.
In Spain, and in many other the european countries, they are now including armed personnel on fishing boats. Some countries allow military soldiers to go with them, some others just allow private security with heavy weapons.
Please google and research "peak oil" a bit. You will discover this crisis is a lot worse than they have told you
No it's not. Even the most die-hard capital 'L' Libertarian would agree that the enforcement of property and human rights are a legitimate function of the state. That would include preventing assholes with AK-47s from holding property and human beings hostage until a nice fat ransom is paid.
The only reason L-libertarians support the government in fighting physical tyranny is because it is the only weapon that the "peasants" have to fight their desired L-libertarian economic tyranny. Make no mistake, these faux-libertarians are really just authoritarians in disguise.
As a l-libertarian, these people piss me off because they have turned the word libertarian into little more than a pejorative now...
It's interesting to me that the only incident involving these Somali pirates and an American vessel resulted in the US Navy getting involved, a few dead pirates, and a rescued civilian Captain. I think it's great that our military took such a firm stance against those pirates and actually protected American citizens. Why don't other nations' militaries take a similar hard-line approach?
All it would take is a few more stories about how a military vessel used lethal force against pirates to protect innocent civilians, and the piracy would dramatically decrease. Heck, a single aircraft carrier in the region, launching planes to fly patrols which would respond to distress calls, would go a long way to securing the region. Why isn't this done?
Intelligent responses welcome, flames will be met with marshmallows.
yes they do attack their own people. and yes they are criminals. I suggest you lay down some money of your own if your so sure of it. let us know how you go.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Certain cargoes could be worse than others. Imagine pirates sinking a super-tanker carrying two million barrels of crude. Not only would it be an ecological disaster that might be impossible to clean, but it would also spike the world oil markets because they'd get jittery. Remember that two million barrels is a tenth of the US daily consumption, and about 2.5% of the world daily consumption. It's not a lot over a year, but the threat that it could happen to other super-tankers would send some panic through the markets.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I raid in WoW, does that made me any difference? :p
No it's not. Even the most die-hard capital 'L' Libertarian would agree that the enforcement of property and human rights are a legitimate function of the state. That would include preventing assholes with AK-47s from holding property and human beings hostage until a nice fat ransom is paid.
What makes you think that these pirates aren't defending Somalias human rights?
They aren't kidnapping Somalians you know.,,, Its not like the US's model cares about foreigners human rights.
Bring back slavery. Not chattel slavery, but indentured servitude for captured pirates, and maybe captured piracy investors, until they work off the value of the money extorted and damage done. The ship owners could set up a corporation.
A Saudi super-tanker was released a little while back for about $2 million. It carried 2 million barrels of oil. The market value at the time was around $100 million. Replacing the cargo and the vessel would have cost a quarter-billion dollars.
Which is more cost effective?
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Welcome to 1688..
Not if you want to do anything effective. Sure, you could pay a local warlord 3 million (1 mill up front, 2 mill after satisfactory job completion), but it's unlikely you'd get anything useful out of it. He might decide the 1 million is enough anyway, and just go on pirating ships. If anything, it'll probably amount to 3 million a week - and at that point, it is indeed cheaper to just weather the occasional loss.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
There's a law. It's directly negotiated between the participating parties instead of a superstructure called government, but you don't think they are not acting according to terms and agreements, do you?
The terms may be as simple as "stay offa my turf or suck my RPG", but you may rest assured that there are agreements in place. Which, btw, is probably the wet dream of a few companies here as well, no government to interfere.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They are the neighbours, clan members and friends.
Why would you rip them off and expect to get away with it?
Coming back after facing water hoses, sonic weapons, warships and NATO control of the sky with nothing is no shame.
People re invest and they sail out agin.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
OK, so I've read the replies to this that say the cargo vessels couldn't dock in ports if they were armed.
Once again a fine example of Slashdoters discussing ad infinitum rather than solving the problem.
The solution is for the ships to be armed while in the open seas but not armed while in safe waters near the ports they want to dock at? "How can they do that?", you ask. Simple. Some enterprising company could set up a floating dock offshore near safe ports. The cargo vessels could then "check their guns at the door" just like in an old cowboy movie. They would offload their guns before they come into port and pick them up again as they leave. I'm sure it would take a competent engineer less than a week to come up with a way to easily mount and dismount these weapons. While in "storage" the weapons could be used to protect the "gun check" from those who would see it as a tempting source of free weaponry. And since that "gun check" would be within the territorial waters of the country with the port, if some pirates did try to steal the weapons they would suffer the full force of that country's navy because the pirates would be invading that country's territorial waters.
This is unregulated laissez faire capitalism at its finest.
Don't be absurd. In laissez faire capitalism the shipping companies would be free to arm their vessels and hire guards to protect themselves from predation. Due to current international treaties, they cannot do this, thus creating an extremely uneven playing field. What this is instead, is A) Yet another example of the fallacy of unilateral disarmament. B) Yet another example of the fallacy of entrusting the defense of your life, liberty and property to the state. Think of it as a school that will suspend you for fighting should you choose to defend yourself against the bully who wants your lunch money.
I'm a die hard libertarian socialist and I don't think of enforcement of property rights as a legitimate function of the state. Stop speaking for me pls.
It could be that it is cheaper just to wear the occasional losses.
Of course it is cheaper. The shipping companies take out insurance for this situation, and the pirates are careful to keep their demands high enough to make a profit, but low enough that they don't scare the ships away, or force the ships to take a different route or escalate the situation into an armed conflict with the west. It is a straight business decision.
NPR's Planet Money blog did a good podcast a while ago about how the pirating business operates.
--
Simon
Ho ho, all together.
Hoist the colors high!
Heave ho, thieves and beggers
Never shall we die!
The pirates of the Mediterranean probably sang a similar tune in 67BC, even as the Lex Gabinia was being passed in Rome. After all, their power had grown unopposed for centuries and they looted trading ships at will and plundered coastal cities with impunity. Piracy was a large, profitable, and enduring enterprise which was endemic over the entire Mediterranean, with ships attacked and ports raided even close to Rome itself.
The Lex Gabinia gave Pompey adequate forces and authority for 2 years to tackle the pirates. He needed only six months to eliminate them completely. According to Cicero: "Pompey made his preparations for the war at the end of the winter, entered upon it at the commencement of spring, and finished it in the middle of the summer." Piracy in the Mediterranean essentially vanished for several centuries, and only started to return during the break-up of Rome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Gabinia
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
lie-bertarians
Tell us how you really feel.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
1 , Do we need this crap on here at all , We are afterall talking about some of the biggest shitheads on the planet here the Somalis ..
2 , Is it not about time the rest of the world started blowing some of these Somali jerks clean out of the water the very moment they are spotted on the radar
3 , Never mind sending in the soldiers just Nuke Somalia and save the world in general a lot of problems
Background ..
Here in the UK Police are to NOT to stop suspect vehicles if they think the occupants may be of omali origin , There is not ONE honest working Somali they ALL are notorious theives pickpockets will stab and or shoot at the slightest hint of a problem have ZERO respect for other people and their property and possesions .
And before you all start getting wet panties about it then ask others that KNOW not the wollie woofters that are in the we cant do that it might hurt them corner kill the whole lot off a vermin on the planet
exactly!!!
We need to fly a couple of VERY HIGH FLYING DRONES loaded with weapons. This is so stupid. Far too many countries have paid so these uneducated guys have found an easy way to make money.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Now watch the slashbot libertards try to reconcile opposition to this anarchistic exploitative system with their adherence to their own anarchistic exploitative systems.
Somehow it's ok when white bankers fuck people over for profit but not when black mud-people from countries we don't like do it.
A single well known 'stock exchange' for this kind of activity gives the world a neat target that could be taken out quickly and efficiently with a single bomb.
It's a principle of most legal systems that anyone knowingly assisting in crime is also a criminal.
Clearly it's public knowledge where these pirate nests are so why haven't they been bombed and napalmed to dust?
None of the people there are innocent not even the supplier of RPGs that is so happy she's gotten $78,000 as a result of terrorism, extortion and kidnapping.
I'd be prepared to 'invest' in a bombing run by a single fighter-bomber even if I got no return.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
The real problem is that they are showing that piracy pays, even in the face of significant Western naval support. It's not generally recognized that the sea lanes are lawless places. and there's nothing stopping anyone from doing what the Somalis are doing. Even words like "defending sea lanes" cause giggles in otherwise educated people.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The only reason L-libertarians support the government in fighting physical tyranny is because it is the only weapon that the "peasants" have to fight their desired L-libertarian economic tyranny.
Out of curiosity, where do the attempts to correct "economic tyranny" end? I'm paying close to 50% of my income in taxes if you account for federal income taxes, FICA taxes, property taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, fees from DMV, fees from DEC, excise taxes, tariffs on the imported goods I buy, etc, etc, etc. Would you not consider losing half of your labor to be a form of "economic tyranny"?
I don't object to a basic safety net. I object to people who abuse that safety net. I object to losing half of my labor. I object to the fact that nearly half of this country pays no income tax while 5% of it pays half. I object to the seemingly unending growth of government, particularly on the Federal level where it's the least representative and most vulnerable to corruption. I object to losing my civil liberties, whether it's under the guise of "public safety" (gun control), "family values" (censorship) or "national security" (1st, 4th and 5th amendments).
I really don't think I'm being unreasonable here.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Unlike Madoff's schemes, this one actually makes money for its investors.
Living in a devastating country like Somali, facing a difficult choice like starvation or detain a ship ask for ransom on daily bases. I'm keep thinking the ridiculous things as this turns to abnormal reasonable fact. The catch which behind those who gain from the pirate share is the crew member who been kidnapped facing live or death everyday. A genuine selfish thought.
Can't we send them all?
I can't think of anybody willing to pay their ransom...
arrrr being a pirate is a high risk investment, especially when there be a market correction in the form of a 1000lb smart bomb.
Um, which might just give the pirates a god excuse for killing everyone aboard instead of just demanding ransom for letting the ship go!
After all, it's just money they're after ... would you kill for money?
Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
It seems to me the easiest way to deal with this is for the shipping companies to hire independent patrol ships, it wouldn't cost very much to be escorted through dangerous waters by an armed patrol boat that forms a safe perimeter around the ship...
this also has the added bonus of solving the problem of oil tankers not being able to have weapons fired on board due to the volatility of their cargo and it solves the problem of certain ports not allowing armed ships, the patrol boat simply anchors off shore in international waters and waits for the cargo ship to re-embark.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This is MY galaxy...go find your OWN!
Help them grow up some more - free glass carpet treatment, border to border; and NO taking refugees by any country. But the world "powers" are too chicken and "PC" to actually DO this.
If you were starving to death, you'd invest in piracy too.
From the article: "The district gets a percentage of every ransom from ships that have been released, and that goes on public infrastructure, including our hospital and our public schools."
So let me get this straight: a group of armed somalis are using force to obtain property from passing ships, and then use the loot to fund public infrastructure and reward investors.
And that's supposed to be shocking? It's just the birth of a state. Replace "ransom" with "tax", "pirates" with "tax collectors", "somali gangs" with "somali government", "investors" with "lobbies" or "activists" or "unions", and you'll see reality a bit more clearly. The same is going on in every country in the world, except that in this case the lies are gone and you get to see a glimpse of reality. Embrace it.
The Palestinians in Gaza have tried a similar approach with the smuggling gangs going under the border to Egypt.
The whole "investment" system crashed because it was in no small part a pyramid scheme. As a consequence Hamas government seized the assets of those involved, being able to pay the "investors" back only a quarter of their "investment".
As much as we despise the western financial system right now, these guys have a system which, by it's very definition, is served by crooks, and for crooks. Not a good starting point, but one that is bound to raise more money into the piracy business and the local warlords that provide them with protection. What could go wrong?
Wait, so...
The shipping companies don't lose money because they're insured, and the insurers don't lose money because they up the premiums, yet the premium increases don't come out of the shipping companies' pockets?
Sir, I think you have described a perpetuum monetare, a perpetual money machine. While Madoff would be proud, the second law of thermoeconomics says it can't exist.
Think of it this way: if a set of goods is on one set of hands instead of another, the other set of hands is (duh) not having those goods. It lost the equivalent to the amount of money those hands value the goods at. It can spread the loss around (some to itself, some to the insurance company, some to their customers, for instance), but there is a loss.
Otherwise, contemplate the world where I steal everything from everybody, own all the land, and won't trade with anyone; you can all shuffle dollar bills back and forth between insurance companies and the insured, but that won't get you your cars, computers or factories back.
So somalis are imposing a 2% tax on marchandise passing through. How much are US taxes in such scenarios?
You want the state to provide you with a family? No wonder you find libertarians puzzling.
Ask yourself, what is the state? It is an organization. A corporation is an organization, an association is an organization. But the state is different from a regular corporation or a regular association, what is this difference? The answer is that a state is sovereign and therefore has the ability to initiate violence or the threat of violence against people.
Any project you may have (food, family, health...), you can either use peaceful volontary means to achieve it, or you can use violent means. A libertarian simply prefers peaceful means and opposes violent means. Using that definition of libertarianism, I'm pretty sure you're a libertarian yourself. What you don't see is that peaceful means is the free market (volontary trade, volontary associations) while the violent means is statism (forced taxes, you have absolutely no choice, you comply or the state puts you in jail). You may believe that the violent means are the best means to reach your ends, but do not pretend that violence is actually volontarism or that volontarism is actually violence. Do not confuse the two.
Until you realize that the statist means is violence, you can not begin to grasp libertarian ideas. Libertarians for example believe that good health is better provided without the initiation of violence (or threat of violence). They may or may not be right, but I don't find this belief to be especially puzzling. I actually find the statist belief, that good health should be provided at the point of a gun, much more puzzling.
Funny. I was always under the impression that "enforcement of property [rights]" involved some "assholes with AK-47s ... holding property hostage ... until a nice fat randsom is paid". After all, what's the basis for anyone claiming property other than a combination of (a) no one else claiming it at the time you did, (b) anyone else who would claim it then or later being killed or threatened to be killed by AK-47s (or the weapon of choice of the day), and (c) a progression of ownership carried down under trade (or a new branch of "legitimate" ownership from another instance of (b)). Really, I don't see how any of the whole ownership cycle is particularly morally legitimate under Libertarianism (or libertarianism) except the first part of section (c).
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
What are you suggesting exactly?
To indiscriminately bomb towns where pirates are based?
What exactly?
Don't mask your derided suggestions behind a mask of pseudo political oppression.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... with people supporting their troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Or at least I hope you would, just as a matter of consistency.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Do you hate truth so much?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
it's not april 1...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
And immoral?
And unethical?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It is only you guys in the US, with the fetishist attachment to your guns, who see a solution on each firefight.
The logical long term solution to the problem would be to stablish a permanent stable government in Somalia, with international cooperation to find a solution.
So your navy killed a few pirates. How valiant. Completely useless.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That is working real well in other places.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It is also a principle of international law that you don;t kill civilians indiscriminately, a point you are clearly glossing over.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And most are not despicable individuals suggesting indiscriminate killing.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And why should they pay? (maybe they are happy to pay the occasional ransom as a "business expense")
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Why not all shipping companies meet with representatives of the pirates (which seem to be perhaps the only organized enterprise, either private or social, in the country) and agree to pay tax or to turn the "stock exchange" in a exchange to offer security services (turning the pirates in "official" escort patrols while in Somali waters).
Why countries with interests in the region don;t look for a solution along these lines?
Realpolitik always work best, the pirates are a real political force to be dealt with, this latest development just comes to show that it is time some people should take them more seriously.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Why is it government function to protect only property, and human rights (which conveniently exclude the rights to basic food, shelter, job, and health care) ? And why the property is so sacred, of all the things a human being needs, such as "true" freedom (not just freedom to die from hunger), good health, or a family?
Ron Paul, for instance, would argue that the government can't actually give you anything, since it has nothing to give, particularly given our current economic situation. In the absence of commodity money and a balanced budget, government can devalue the money currently in circulation, or it can defer goods and services from private individual and industry, but it can't actually contribute anything materially to the economy. Whatever the government gives must be taken from someone.
I believe the the point is that the right to truly control the property you own and the services that you render is more inherent to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than a guarantee of, e.g., healthcare. I don't believe that the government will be able to provide satisfactory healthcare to everyone in the United States. They can't decisively "win" a war against a bunch of ass backwards goat farmers, not with the largest military budget the world has ever seen and decades of practice - how are they going to heal people? It's much harder, and much more expensive, than killing them.
I don't think that anyone is seriously arguing that strict constitutionalism is a utopian ideal, but more of an admission that government is always deeply flawed. As the saying goes... the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
not to mention the legalities concerning armaments in non-international waters, and the fact that using said armaments in non-international waters are constituted as an act of war, which concerns most nations a bit.
~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
Because the group of individuals known as a government can't protect your "right" to health-care, basic food, shelter or a job without taking those things from other individuals under threat of imprisonment if they don't cough up. So a "right" to food means someone else has to grow it on their land and hand it over, either being paid with money that been taken from *other* productive members of the village or point blank stolen and handed over to the person asserting their "right". Some right ey?
The right to "basic food" means the right to take something that someone else has put a lot of effort in, what or who gives *you* that right just by virtue of being born? And what if ther people growing their food stop growing it and demand their rights too? Property rights are the core of all rights, without being "allowed" to own any singular item or piece of land how can one be at all free? Given the track record of societies that don't recognise property rights but *do* recognise the "right" to strike, housing, healthcare and food *cough*Eastern Bloc*cough* there's an extremely strong historical argument for the basis of what the libertarians are saying.
I'm not even nearly a "lie-bertarian" and even I understand that....
This says more about business rather than anything else. Even Somalian pirates can do it.
Why don't the ships travel in convoys so that a few armed ships can escort a fleet of unarmed cargo ships.
Cheaper for multiple ships to split the cost.
Libertarians do not deny the right to shelter or food. They never have. Your welcome to obtain those as you see fit as long as you don't deprive another of their life, property, or rights.
The key is that you have no right to demand the property and rights of others to satisfy your desires. This includes not having others act as proxy in taking from others. This is not the same as denying you your "right" to shelter or food. Though it amazes me as to what constitutes a right. We have people claiming rights to cell phones, internet, and other such garbage too. Who is correct?
I think the best summary of the Libertarian outlook is, don't expect others to do it for you unless you first try to do it yourself.
when you just hand people other people's stuff without requirement of effort you simply encourage more of the behavior that led to creating people of the first group. We have examples of this in every society. People who have figured out that if they lower their standards enough they can exist on the welfare of others. Yes there are cases anyone can cite showing someone who is trying but not getting ahead, but those are not the focus of the problem.
I have far more respect for someone working at Wal-Mart/McDonalds/Etc than the person collecting unemployment and not working there because "its beneath them" or not cool. The real adults of this world will work any legal job to provide food and shelter for their families, even if it means more than one. Been there, done that. The rest are just selfish jerks too wrapped up in themselves.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Stay tuned for the Davy Jones report.
Ba dum psh! I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
...it would save many more lifes at the end.
Umm...how many hostages have been killed by the pirates to date? Whenever I hear something about the pirates, they only sum up the number of killed pirates!
Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
...Dhow Jones?
"Even the most die-hard capital 'L' Libertarian would agree that the enforcement of property and human rights are a legitimate function of the state."
What? Why? I've sometimes been told that taxes are some kind of inherent evil that would go away if only government didn't exist. It always left me wondering how the police, judiciary and military would be funded if there weren't taxes, not to mention a whole lot of other services that people usually regard as essential (e.g., fire and other emergency services, public transportation systems such as roads and signage, water delivery systems, border monitoring and security, etc.). I presumed it would all be done with fees paid by everyone to private companies that would provide the necessary services at vastly greater efficiencies, plus their profits (but don't call them "taxes").
I like the way you are arguing that international law should be changed to match the legal system of Somalia.
Except not really.
You try sailing up to a port in the USA with weapons systems on board, Asian or Arabic looking crew and telling the port authorities and coastguards to get off your case because you're legitimate and just protecting yourself.
You may well be - perhaps you are a merchant vessel that has to sail through dangerous middle eastern or asian waters and has a legitimate and proven reason for being armed to the teeth, but I can imagine what the American responses would be from the port authorities up to the senators.
I've got a feeling the general consensus in the USA (and many countries) would be "well we don't mind if our merchant ships are armed to the teeth when they sail into foreign ports, because they are all honest decent boys and girls on board, but we don't trust any dodgy foreign merchant vessels coming into OUR ports like that...
Without a right to property, you can have no right to life.
I think this is how it always starts... East India Trading Company anyone? I'm sure the only difference here is that the Somalian version is missing the Royal sanction, and there are no subjugated peoples to steal from... I mean trade with
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
Googling "somali pirates fought back" yields quite a few articles about N Korean, S Korean, Egyptian, and Spanish ships that fought back successfully. These are untrained men with improvised weapons - not trained men with rifles.
These pirates aren't "multiple decade battle hardened militants". Most have NO organized military training whatsoever. The process of recruiting for Armies in Somali wars consists of driving around in pickup trucks yanking young men off the street. Somali "veterans" are veterans of little more than the usual random violence that plagues the country.
No, I'm quite certain that the other posters are right. It's the entry rules to various ports that keep ships from arming themselves. In many cases where crew has had some means to fight back and has tried, the pirates have cut and run. They are after easy money - not a prolonged fight. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_attacked_by_Somali_pirates)
Why is it government function to protect only property, and human rights (which conveniently exclude the rights to basic food, shelter, job, and health care)?
Because the first principal is, the government doesn't exist to take your stuff at the point of a gun and give it to someone else. That is the prevailing thought; the government is not here to rob citizens. Which is exactly what most governments do - give us half of what you make, or more, or we will send police armed with guns to either take it take it and put you in jail, or shoot you and take it anyways. That is what happens when you don't give the government its half (or more).
And, I want to stress, you need not be rich for 1/2 of what you make to end up being taxes. Poor people get hammered on taxes, especially flat rate and fixed cost ones. You can be on food stamps and still get reamed on taxes.
and human rights (which conveniently exclude the rights to basic food, shelter, job, and health care). And why the property is so sacred, of all the things a human being needs, such as "true" freedom (not just freedom to die from hunger), good health, or a family?
Do the libertarians have their own definition of human rights? Because the UN version has articles which are directly opposite of what you claim.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. (...)
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (...)
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, (...)
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
For vessels that do not dock at US ports? Nothing at all of course, that would be piracy...
This sig all sigs devours
The world isn't so black and white.
It is very reasonable that many Somali's don't consider the pirates as criminals. In the same way many western people don't see their armies in the middle east as murdering criminals. It's a matter of perspective.
And (I may be going out on a limb here) I don't think Valdrax is Somali. So I don't think he'll be investing any time soon.
The US has contributed a lot to the UN declaration to human rights (it was mainly written by US citizens) but hasn't actually ratified it. So those are rights of other people not US citizens. Some of these are implemented in state constitutions though.
This would be classified as a fund, not an exchange.
While I feel for the plight of the Somali people, this needs to be stopped. If merchant vessels can't easily arm themselves for legal reasons, then they should move through dangerous waters with a military warship escort. Create shipping lanes, and ruthlessly enforce the security of those lanes.
It doesn't make sense for a single shipping company to raise an army and pay for the pirates to be killed. Their own costs would go up, while competing companies would get the same benefit and not share the cost. So as a result none of the companies will do anything to improve the overall situation.
They can overcome this problem by cooperating - creating a common organization which organizes the army and having each company pay part of the cost - e.g. by charging a fee for the passage through Somali waters, depending on the amount of goods you are transporting. Of course you could then call the fee "tax" and the "common organization which organizes the army and collects the tax" could be named "state" in short.
This is unregulated laissez faire capitalism at its finest.
The cyberpunk literature will find its renaissance not from the sprawls of the Far East but from the varied geographical areas of Africa. Urban corporate warfare mixed with Predator style jungle scenes, smugglers with their hovercrafts flying above the savannah and steppes, narrowly escaping the combined forces of the remaining governments and mayors of the independent free cities. Economical zones as large as 5000-8000 years ago, spreading across the African continent with the guiding principle of anarchy and non-uniformity. Africa learns to stand on its own for the first time since the colonization, imperialism and slave trade destroyed the previous large scale structures.
To the topic again. The Americans will prefer the pirates to any kind of Islamic government since the pirates can be bought. They have indirectly assassinated African ideologically (like democracy and national interest) driven political leaders before.
Ron Paul, for instance, would argue that the government can't actually give you anything, since it has nothing to give
The government can give you property, or access to property.
When a person dies, their assets go to their heirs (or friends if there's a will), but if they have no heirs and no will the property goes to the state. That's one way the state can get stuff without violence. The state also has tons of property that it stole during the creation of the state, or claimed as it's own when there was no-one to claim otherwise.
Mostly tho, the government takes property in the form of taxes. It uses the threat of men with guns to convince people to pay their taxes.
The was a least one senator or congressman who said that his fellows shouldn't approve any spending bill unless it was so important that men with guns should take the money from grandmothers. (I paraphrase)
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
...even in the face of significant Western naval support.
I don't recall reading anywhere about a carrier fleet bombing the shit out of Somali pirates in international waters, or the pirates picking on a small private yacht only to find three Victoria-class hunter-killer submarines have been tracking them for the past two hours.
Please, tell me of this "significant Western naval support" you mention.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Great. Now they know to ask for $20m next time.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
The real problem is that they are showing that piracy pays, even in the face of significant Western naval support.
Which is a much bigger problem than the millions of dollars they've been paid in ransoms. These pirates have shown that, for all our vaunted might, the Western powers can do nothing to stop them because there is no political will to do so. Even though the US spends billions of dollars on our Navy, we can't stop a few thousand guys with assault rifles in rubber rafts from controlling the sea lanes. This is yet another sign that the American empire is in serious decline and doesn't have long to live.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Because if your ancestors didn't in some part believe in that ethos, they would have settled somewhere else. All of those points show up in the US's founding mission statement.
Use .NET trading platform and this stock exchange won't last too much :)
Simple, really. Because property rights allow individuals to move up in the world. Take Africa, for example. They are VERY RICH in natural resources; but there's no property rights. So the farmer who could setup irrigation on his field and feed his/her family won't do it, beacuse as soon as he spends all the time and effort to do that, someone will come and take that away from him/her by force.
There is poverty in Africa because it lacks good property rights.
"Rights" to basic food, shelter, job, and health care create AN ONEROUS RESPONSIBILITY ON PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY AND ALLOW UNPRODUCTIVE PEOPLE TO LEACH OFF SOCIETY.
Property is sacred because it's the fruit of human labor. It must be protected in order to encourage productive people to produce. I guess they don't cover that in communist-sponsored leftist schools.
Food, shelter, jobs and health care are noble goals indeed, but are best left to CHARITY, to which you are free to contribute. But do NOT use FORCE to force people to GIVE UP the fruits of their labor to others any more than is necessary to protect property rights. Strong property rights enable everyone to succeed, and allow you the CHOICE to contribute to charity.
Since when is food, shelter, job, and health care a right? Who determines it? Only one of the four mentioned is an actual necessity, with shelter as a close second. Job would merely facilitate shelter and food, but is not required. Your wording of them as "rights" presupposes that people are entitled to them by someone else, which is certainly not the case. "Capable of obtaining" would be far more appropriate.
Wait....someone got an RPG as an alimony payment?!?!?!?
I think the NRA just got a new spokesperson!
An easy way to end the piracy is for every ship that the Somali pirates capture a Somali port should be bombed to oblivion. Either the pirates will get the message and stop engaging in piracy, or every port will eventually be destroyed. With all the port destroyed there will be no place for the Somali pirates to bring captured ships. No place for the Somali pirates to go home to. The ones at sea will starve to death.
I don't think the defining feature of capitalism is lack of bartering or the use of money. It's the "private ownership of the means of production". It involves the extraction of a profit (the owner ends with more stuff than he started with) based on the fact that he can marshall the means of production (labour, materials) at a lower cost per unit than price he charges per unit, thus obtaining a profit margin. Ten individuals acting on their own with ten units of wealth each (dollars, apples, biscuits) will not be able to achieve what one individual with 100 units of wealth can achieve.
Whether exchanges take place with money or apples and biscuits is irrelevant. If I end up with more apples and biscuits than I started with and I didn't do any actual work but merely recruited the means of production with fewer apples and biscuits than I got in exchange for the finished product, that makes me a capitalist.
Money is more convenient than apples and biscuits, it enables the unhindered operation of a free market in the case that people go off apples and biscuits, or in the case that the apples and biscuits themselves go off.
This is why 1% of the people have 99% (or whatever) of the wealth. The rich get richer because they can leverage their wealth. That's capitalism, and the inherent unfairness in the system is the reason for socialism, i.e. taxation and redistribution. The alternative to taxation and redistribution is revolt and murder - which is why the rich agree to it! They don't want guillotined.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Do you actually work for your money or do you leverage your pre-extant wealth to get others to do the work for you? If it's the former, I sympathise. If it's the latter, I do not.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
which is more cost effective?
I'll tell you. send in the military and BOMB the bastards. forget the ships. but once they are in a true war, they will surely regret the fact that they taunted a world power. mess with the bull and get a taste of the horns.
but america and the west are too pussified to take a MAJOR stance.
we did that a few times in WW2 with the atom bomb. its arguable if it was the right decision or not but it DID end the war and it DID 'fix' a major world issue at the time.
these clowns are laughing at us, the only major super world power left. and they PIRATE us (and other nations). and we PAY THEM to do this. time and time again by rewarding them.
arm the ships. blow up your own ship next time its seized.
it will only happen a few times and then they'll 'learn'.
but again, we're all too pussified to take major action. so we'll continue to pay ransom again and again and again. and they continue to laugh in our faces again and again.
bomb them or put the red button on the ships that they capture. they will stop their 'behavior if shown a proper stick, so to speak.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I've never seen one, but I doubt that they are easy to test without actually firing them. If I were an insurance company I would use this market to "invest" non-functional weapons. As a bonus, if the pirates succeed anyway, you get some of your money back.
Nullius in verba
Which regulation is it, exactly, that prevents shipping companies from paying to have pirates killed?
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
It could actually evolve into a legit market. Instead of raising money for hijackings then gather money of other ventures.
I think a libertarian system would result in a hodge-podge in terms of roads. A road system that's a network of privately owned roads would have to have some kind of toll system and knowing how private companies like to have their own proprietary system, I don't even think a nationwide privately owned speedpass system would be efficient, once you reach a new network, you might have to sign up for tag #20 in your car or pay a toll every five miles.
Privately owned fire departments and police departments did exist in the past, but I think that led to problems too, the libertarians that I know seem to conveniently forget or not know the history that hurts their case.
Let Wall Street at them... soon they will be trading Rum Derivatives or some such BS, and what is more risky business than freaking being a pirate... then comes the debt collapse... Unfortunately they will likely rule that the pirates of an entire nation are too big to fail, and will get a bailout... which will artificially keep them afloat (pardon the pun)... people will scream about regulation, but the pirates will drown (pardon the pun again... geez!) out the naysayers with "Yo Ho Hos" and "Shiver Me Timbers", and eventually it will all happen again.
Wait, what were we talking about again...
Who says they won't? I mean, the first shipping company has an army now, and it's not too busy at the moment...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Actually they have another choice. They could turn those AK-47s that are so easy to come by on the assholes that are fucking up their country.
They have been trying to do that to this day. That simply creates more extremist movements (against the old problems though people disagree which groups are the worst ones) and results in even more conflicts and war.
War can only result in peace until all but the winning side have been either destroyed completely or are in extremely tight control. You could say "How about american civil war? The losing states still exist" but that was mostly a war against wealthy slave owners (which don't exist). It is completely different to fight a war against "Islamist extremist" or such which can't be easily idenfitied and won't just give up and say "OK, we stop being extremists". Especially if you don't know which factions are on your side and which aren't. And even if one side would be destroyed there isn't the required bureaucracy to keep things working.
A conflict like that could never be won through the force of arms.
Same thing happens with retail theft.
"I am waiting for my share after I contributed a rocket-propelled grenade for the operation,' she said, adding that she got the weapon from her ex-husband in alimony." Forget about the pirates, where the hell does one get a RPG as part of a divorce settlement. If you're dividing the family arsenal of military grade weaponry during the divorce, investing in a pirate cartel probably seems down right normal.
Jefferson sent in the USS Enterprise, Constellation, Constitution, Intrepid and other ships to deal with piracy back in the 1800's. Too bad they didn't have phasers back then.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Stock exchange... more like a barter economy that has existed for centuries. I'll trade you 10 chickens for 1 cow on a larger scale.
What's worrying is that they are currently running around in 'fishing boats', but with the type of profits they are making soon it might be something far more lethal.
Possibly in 5 years new headline 'Somali Pirate Submarine threatens to sink all vessels in the straight unless all international cargo companies pay $5 million each'.
There has to be a tipping point where the international community shuts these guys down. Hopefully before they purchase missiles and other advanced military weapons.
With the advanced tracking and radar technology out there can't the US or anyone track the pirates and know what they're doing? Can't be that hard to knock them off.
New View Media - Custom Website Design
That is pretty wrong, while it may have been 'impolite' to bring the ignorance of a jewish concentration camp survivor to light publicly. I certainly agree with your point, making sure it never happens again without pointing out that it IS happening currently is pretty wrongheaded.
I say kudos to you, and hopefully you brought to light something that this person was unaware of that they will use in future presentations. Sadly I doubt that they will bother as it is not 'their' people being persecuted.
The act of providing property rights removes that property from the public as a whole. Who or what gives you that right by virtue of having more money or have gotten there first?
All rights require people to be restricted - you're just happy to deal with some of the restrictions over others.
Wouldn't you want to arm yourself? Maybe even hire a few guns for the ride? Maybe even get the crew some target practice? Don't captains have some say in protecting their crew/cargo?
But that's necessary even if you defend only property rights. Even a libertarian government would still have police to defend the property rights and courts to settle disputes which mean they would have to tax which means they would have to take money by threat of violence and imprisonment. You're not avoiding the dilemma, you're just prioritizing the "rights" that are important to you over the rights that are important to people less fortunate than you.
They go after the fishing ships on principle, the merchant ships to be profitable.
I do admit: that transition is not without precedent ...
I suspect that the name of this town might be changed on the maps to "Bombheere", as soon as the pirates sufficiently annoy any of the nations with a military presence in the area.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
To me it seems as though the world looks at criminals in a peculiar way - "You kill one person, they give you X years in prison. Two or more, they look at you through a tiny window through a door. Someone's killed 100,000 people? We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning! I can't even get down the gym. Your diary must look odd: 'Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death – lunch – death, death, death – afternoon tea – death, death, death – quick shower ' " To what extent do we allow these 'pirates' to organize and become stronger??
well screw college I'm gonna be a pirate!
Well it is nice to see that there is a company that is openly a pirate corporation - this might be a new trend, windows could change its icon to the jolly roger
Blowing up your own tanker that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build and carries another 100+ million in cargo is better than paying 2 million in ransom? Yeah, that'll teach them to screw with us. Now they have the crew and no prize. Guess what's getting ransomed now. And hey, then we can start dropping bombs, and instead of ransoming the crew, they'll just execute them instead.
Use the stick too much, and the animal bites back.
This is pennies on the dollar. To a business, this is no different than greasing the local zoning board before getting permits for a new building complex.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In a truly unregulated market the vessels losing millions of dollars would instead pay millions of dollars to have all of the pirates killed.
Millions of dollars just doesn't kill that many people anymore. The Iraq war was billed as costing $6 billion, but it will be a trillion when we are done with it. And a lot of those combat troops are military--which means we get there services for a song because of patriotism and all that other good stuff. A fully privately financed army capable of pacifying Somalia would be measured in hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars. It is cheaper to pay the ransom.
yeah but then you start talking about what property means and you end up in the weeds.
If I park my car on the street in front of your house is it still mine? What if I park it in your driveway. What if I leave it there for a year and point my gun at the tow truck driver whenever he drives down the street?
What if I have one car parked in your driveway leaking oil onto your yard for a year while I periodically siphon gas from your car while you're not looking and then get a new car and park it if front of my house? Is it conceivable that you have a right to the new car because my old car deprived you of the use and value of your property? If there's no state to enforce property rights can yo do it on your own?
You need some means of force of violence to protect even the most trivial property rights. Libertarianism is as undesirable as Somalia and everyone else just disagrees on the scope of government intervention.
The Palestinians had/have a similar thing where people "invest" in digging tunnels to smuggle goods under the Egyptian border. Generally pretty profitable, though fairly financially risky, very similar to the early shipping pools. Unfortunately turns out some of them (not sure how many) were basically Ponzi schemes and when people went to withdraw some of their "profits" turned out it was all gone. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens here - Somalia has even less effective government, and there'd be essentially no chance of getting prosecuted (though lynched, pretty good chance of getting lynched if you weren't quick on your feet).
So basically, they've implemented a real life version of Zynga's Mob Wars / Gang Wars / Pirates game.
You need to learn the difference between individual and institutional racism. The fact that ethnic slaughters in Africa are not given proportionate time and attention is a manifestation of racism, because it's basically the effect of the fact that people keep minimizing of the importance of black victims.
However, it's one of those forms of racism that you cannot easily pin into an individual person. Basically, it results from the pattern of behavior of the population as a whole, in a way that, most of the time, most of the people who contribute to it can disclaim responsibility for it. No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood. The lady was indeed talking about what she knew firsthand, but the victims of ethnic slaughters in Africa are not given that opportunity nearly as often, which an aspect of a real problem.
GP's action was still a typical teenaged asshole move, though.
Are you adequate?
The US has contributed a lot to the UN declaration to human rights (it was mainly written by US citizens) but hasn't actually ratified it. So those are rights of other people not US citizens. Some of these are implemented in state constitutions though.
So human rights only exist in so far as they're recognized by the government? That should cut down on the world's human rights violations...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
By that libertarian logic, there can be no property at all, as in involves the government forcibly stopping anyone else from using it. In fact, in a true libertarian society, no-one owns anything except what they create out of thin air.
Who gave them that land in the first place? Government. Government gave you the land, and if that land bears fruit, they can tell you how it's going to be distributed. Don't like it? Make your own land.
They did ask for $20 million. It was bargained downward significantly.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The economic tyranny is that 5% of the country has half the wealth in the first place. Libertarians would have you believe that the people who own the means of production create all the wealth, when in reality they're just stealing it, and whine like stuck pigs when the rest of society makes them give back merely half of what they've taken out.
Btw please don't talk about import tariffs as taking your labour. Protectionism like that is what allows so many Americans to make so much money. Those taxes are propping up your uncompetitive domestic businesses, allowing you to take even bigger slices of the pie you didn't bake.
Property rights are the core of all rights, without being "allowed" to own any singular item or piece of land how can one be at all free?
Doesn't that mean that it is in the interests of those who own something to prevent anarchy? Because in complete anarchy, they own effectively nothing (except perhaps what they personally manage to prevent others from taking by use of force). Consequently a society in which ownership is possible, requires mechanisms to prevent it from slipping into anarchy. You might be able to prevent anarchy if you have a very harsh society in which those who are unable to fend for themselves, are kept under control by force until thier miserable lives end or you can try to have a not-so-harsh society, which provides everyone with the very basic necessities. Whilst you quite correctly note that if basic necesssities are a "right" for everyone, it requires taking resources from someone, you forget that the alternative is to be forced to use resources to keep those who have nothing, under control. I really don't know which alternative will cost less for those who have resources. However, if you compare western wealth with the eastern bloc, I compare wealth in anarchies in the world *cough*Somalia*cough* with western wealth.
For those interested, the Planet Money piece is here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103657301
Perhaps I did not clearly explain myself. (although im fairly certain I did...)
The goal would be to kill them so that they could no long hold a quarter-billion dollars in goods ransom.
Clearly the marginal cost of the ransom is lower than the potential risk of attempting to free the hostages violently.
However take note that only ONE US flag ship has ever been boarded by Somali pirates (in the modern era). That is due in large part to the fact that the pirates who boarded that vessel where not paid, they were not arrested, they were all shot dead by the SEALS snipers.
The British figured out how to deal with pirates a long long time ago. You kill them, it's really quote simple.
Nobody gets the Atlas Shrugged joke?
No it's not. Even the most die-hard capital 'L' Libertarian would agree that the enforcement of property and human rights are a legitimate function of the state.
There are many anarcho-capitalists among libertarians, and they do not believe that there are any legitimate reasons for state to exist at all (supposedly, private security forces will take care of enforcement of property rights). See Vernor Vinge etc
Given the track record of societies that don't recognise property rights but *do* recognise the "right" to strike, housing, healthcare and food *cough*Eastern Bloc*cough*
No country of the Eastern Bloc had ever recognized the "right to strike" - supposedly, as all means of production were already in the hands of the proletariat, any strike was nothing more than a harmful economic diversion.
there's an extremely strong historical argument for the basis of what the libertarians are saying.
This implies that the only two legal points are "Eastern bloc" and "libertarian". It should be quite obvious from simply looking at the variety of economic systems and their implementations in countries today that there are many more options, and places like Scandinavia manage to recognize property rights and right to strike/housing/healthcare/food/... at the same time just fine.
I agree, if one is discussing Industrial Capitalism. In merchant capitalism, though one does still technically own "the means of production", it is that means that is the crucial difference.
As an example, Mr. X sees an opportunity to increase both his firewood and meat supply for the upcoming cold season. He owns the means of production (an axe), but not necessarily the prodution itself. He cuts down some trees with his means, and then trades some of the "production" (logs) for materials (meat). This is merchant capitalism.
In Industrial capitalism, Mr. X would lend you his axe, you would cut down the trees, and, in return, you would get y% of the resulting logs. In this instance, Mr. X owns the means of production (axe); yet to make the "sale", he leverages your labor for a greater return on his axe investment.
It's a subtle distinction, but important to the overall discussion of why privateering can be called capitalism... just maybe not in a form most are used to seeing.
0100010001101001011001 0100100000011010010110 1110001000000110000100 1000000110011001101001 0111001001100101
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Thank you, good sir! That made me smile, which was just what I needed :)
I assume sailors know the risk of being captured by pirates, and are briefed on company policy on ransom payments before they approach pirate infested waters.
So, out of interest, would you tell the sailors beforehand that you will kill them if they get captured by pirates, or would you only hire crew who were willing to lay down their life for your future profitability or would you wait for crew who didn't ask what your policy is?
Deus Ex had an interesting side dialog between the protagonist (JC) and one of the AIs, Morpheus:
JC: I don’t see anything amusing about spying on people.
Morpheus: Human beings feel pleasure when they are watched. I have recorded their smiles as I tell them who they are.
JC: Some people just don’t understand the dangers of indiscriminate surveillance.
Morpheus: The need to be observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms.
JC: Electronic surveillance hardly inspires reverence. Perhaps fear and obedience, but not reverence.
Morpheus: God and the gods were apparitions of observation, judgement, and punishment. Other sentiments toward them were secondary.
JC: No one will ever worship a software entity peering at them through a camera.
Morpheus: The human organism always worships. First it was the gods, then it was fame (the observation and judgement of others), next it will be the self-aware systems you have built to realize truly omnipresent observation and judgement.
JC: You underestimate humankind’s love of freedom.
Morpheus: The individual desires judgement. Without that desire, the cohesion of groups is impossible, and so is civilization.
And then a remark of the same AI:
God was a dream of good government.
The latter is an interesting idea, and I think that perhaps it cuts both ways (i.e. government is a dream of a "better God").
They capture them now when they can. Most of the navies involved in the area attempt to deter the pirates rather than open fire on them. Even when shots are fired, they're warning shots, and they are frequently not followed up with anything more.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
WHO THE HELL SAID THAT?!? wtf dude. What are you thinking? I was thinking of the pirates in the Caribbean myself. Her Majesty could send all the ships in the world to patrol and it wouldn't matter, but finding the hidden pirate havens and destroying them always worked. Learn from history, my bafflingly murderously-minded friend.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
There are a huge number of ships doing anti-piracy off the Horn of Africa now. Even the Chinese are getting into the act. Part of it is "these guys need training, and they'd just be cruising around somewhere anyway" and part of it is the actual anti-piracy patrol. Evidently you live in a world where articles like this don't exist.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I have her payoff. Ride her out of town on a rail, then hang her. Hang her high. Then go after the pirates for a few dollars more. Same thing, rail then hang them. Take pictures. Post them on facebook - the good (Victims), the bad (Pirates) and the ugly (Politicians that do nothing, "Oh, don't kill them").
it is simply not 'there are pirates, and we all pay them off'. maybe we should ask, WHY there are doing what they do? why is the country so desolate? it wouldn't be from the mega corps going t here, paying little of nothing for every last piece of resource, then leaving. no, it couldn't be there, pirates are bad....
Sun Tzu says that it is a military axiom not to advance uphill against the enemy, nor to oppose him when he comes downhill. Fighting from an open 30' boat on open ocean against a freighter 100' off the water strikes me as an uphill advance if there ever was one. All other things being equal, I'd say the odds were against the pirates. So far, the pirates have succeeded because there has been no resistance. The result is that there are now 15 ships being held and huge paydays encouraging more piracy. If pirates murder the British couple as they have threatened (assuming they have not already), there is no more reason to surrender without resistance.
Just like 9/11 changed the rules of dealing with aircraft hijackers, the situation will not be sustainable in the long term.
I have no idea why you got modded up and GP down. He was obviously referring only to Somalia with his remark about laissez faire capitalism. There are FAIAP /no/ laws there.
I am also confused by your last sentence, which seems to imply that the UN has direct influence on Somalian law and/or government.
call me FOSS im the boss with the sauce and the source
AFAIK, strike has never been a right in communist regimes, if that's what your meaning is. More of the opposite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action#In_the_People.27s_Republic_of_China_and_the_Former_Soviet_Union
The right to strike is a basic democratic right; denying it is a clear symptom of a lack of democracy, that happens in all kinds of dictatorship. It has had a main role in the fight for democracy in a lot of places, as a way to avoid tyrannical governments or powerful people's abuses. Much better, and much more civilized way to fight for your rights than resorting to guns and direct violence.
Of course, it's sometimes abused, and used to do very nasty things, but that's an entirely different story...