Wrong, and Somalia is not an example of an alternative to government. There are numerous governments in Somalia. These governments are fighting for control, because they want to be larger governments.
Wikipedia:
De facto control of the north of the country resides in the local authorities; of these Puntland, Northland State, Maakhir, Galmudug, acknowledge the authority of the TFG and maintain their declaration of autonomy within a federated Somalia. Territories south of Galmudug are in generally in the hands of the Islamic Courts Union and Al-Shabab, including the major port cities of Kismayo and Merka. The TFG has lost effective control of the country and now holds on to Baidoa, the seat of the Parliament, and a few areas of Mogadishu which are both under constant attack. On the other hand, Somaliland in the north, with its capital in Hargeisa, has declared independence and does not recognise the TFG as the governing authority. Its independence is unrecognized internationally due to opposition from the TFG and other African countries which fear secessionist movements.
(emphasis added)
Sounds like government to me.
Even if you believe that Somalia is in a state of "anarchy", it is essential to note that the current conditions in Somalia are heavily influenced by past action by governments. Somalia is in no way an example of what happens when there is no government. Thus the conditions accompanying the 'anarchy' in Somalia are not inherent in the concept of anarchy itself, nor do they necessarily follow from it. But all this is somewhat moot, since Somalia does in fact have governments. Any time there are those who claim the right to use aggressive force to control others, that is government, as that is the defining feature of the phenomenon of government.
A better example (albeit perhaps imperfect) of anarchy in history would be that of medieval Iceland. Icelanders lived fairly peacefully for a period of a few hundreds years under a market-based quasi-anarchy in which 'chieftains' offered protection and court services. The chieftains did not extract taxes nor claim territory. One could live near one chieftain, for example, but use the services of another, quite unlike government as we know it, which is generally quite territorial.
Are you a fan of the USA, on the federal level? One could say the same thing about the individual states and the federal government.
Or, for that matter, one could say the same thing about the counties and the states. Or the municipialities and the counties. Or the neighbourhoods and the municipialities. Or the individual homeowners and the neighborhoods.
That's the right idea. In fact, each individual has the right to govern himself with no interference from outside forces -- assuming, of course, that he does not interfere with (i.e. violate the rights of) anyone else, either.
Seriously, what IS the difference?
What the EU needs is more democracy - or, rather, some democracy at all. But that's a matter of implementation, and the basic idea is not just sound, it's in fact no different from ANY kind of government on any other level, either.
No, the idea of government is itself unsound. It is innately immoral. You started off on the right track with your initial questions. You went off track when you accepted that government is a legitimate idea. Check your premises.
Why? Repeat offender laws are remarkably effective in normal crime control; what makes this different?
For one thing, the fact that no crime is involved. A "crime" without a victim -- someone whose rights were violated -- is no crime at all (whether it's immoral or not), and no one can have rights which violate the rights of someone else. Thus, true property rights and rights of association and communication trump so-called 'rights' to copyright, which are in fact no rights at all, but the violation of rights.
Second, as another poster mentioned, no conviction is required.
So the wrong side won the US civil war? Just checking. You're allowed to say 'yes,' I know it wasn't really about slavery (though you have to ask yourself whether the revolution wasn't, given the timing).
Yes, of course the wrong side won. Of course, neither side was libertarian, but the North was the aggressor against the South. It was the North which invaded and sought to conquer another country, and the South which was defending its own territory, attempting to repel a foreign invader.
It also wasn't a civil war, of course, since a civil war is one between factions in the same country, vying for control of the same government or territory. The political bonds between the North and the South had been severed, therefore any war between them could not, by definition, have been a 'civil war'.
By "the revolution", what do you mean? Are you referring to the revolution of 1776? No, it wasn't about slavery. Or are you calling the secession of the Southern states prior to the "civil war" a revolution? It wasn't one. In a revolution, one faction seeks control of, or seeks to change, a government. In a secession, a party to that government simply seeks to leave. The secession was not about slavery either. Some said it was, even at the time, but tariffs were a much greater factor. The tariffs at the time were a proportionately greater burden on the south. In his inaugural address, Lincoln threatened invasion of the south if the tariffs were not paid.
Copyrights do not protect the rights of creators. There is no such thing as "intellectual property". Copyright and patent laws are in fact a violation of property rights, as they force individual owners of property from using and manipulating their own property as they choose. Look up Stephan Kinsella.
You think so? The states were "free to leave" too -- they never gave up their sovereignty -- but look what happened when they tried. I wouldn't bet on it being any different this time.
Slashdot Mirror
De facto control of the north of the country resides in the local authorities; of these Puntland, Northland State, Maakhir, Galmudug, acknowledge the authority of the TFG and maintain their declaration of autonomy within a federated Somalia. Territories south of Galmudug are in generally in the hands of the Islamic Courts Union and Al-Shabab, including the major port cities of Kismayo and Merka. The TFG has lost effective control of the country and now holds on to Baidoa, the seat of the Parliament, and a few areas of Mogadishu which are both under constant attack. On the other hand, Somaliland in the north, with its capital in Hargeisa, has declared independence and does not recognise the TFG as the governing authority. Its independence is unrecognized internationally due to opposition from the TFG and other African countries which fear secessionist movements.
(emphasis added)
Sounds like government to me.
Even if you believe that Somalia is in a state of "anarchy", it is essential to note that the current conditions in Somalia are heavily influenced by past action by governments. Somalia is in no way an example of what happens when there is no government. Thus the conditions accompanying the 'anarchy' in Somalia are not inherent in the concept of anarchy itself, nor do they necessarily follow from it. But all this is somewhat moot, since Somalia does in fact have governments. Any time there are those who claim the right to use aggressive force to control others, that is government, as that is the defining feature of the phenomenon of government. A better example (albeit perhaps imperfect) of anarchy in history would be that of medieval Iceland. Icelanders lived fairly peacefully for a period of a few hundreds years under a market-based quasi-anarchy in which 'chieftains' offered protection and court services. The chieftains did not extract taxes nor claim territory. One could live near one chieftain, for example, but use the services of another, quite unlike government as we know it, which is generally quite territorial.
Are you a fan of the USA, on the federal level? One could say the same thing about the individual states and the federal government.
Or, for that matter, one could say the same thing about the counties and the states. Or the municipialities and the counties. Or the neighbourhoods and the municipialities. Or the individual homeowners and the neighborhoods.
That's the right idea. In fact, each individual has the right to govern himself with no interference from outside forces -- assuming, of course, that he does not interfere with (i.e. violate the rights of) anyone else, either.
Seriously, what IS the difference?
What the EU needs is more democracy - or, rather, some democracy at all. But that's a matter of implementation, and the basic idea is not just sound, it's in fact no different from ANY kind of government on any other level, either.
No, the idea of government is itself unsound. It is innately immoral. You started off on the right track with your initial questions. You went off track when you accepted that government is a legitimate idea. Check your premises.
Why? Repeat offender laws are remarkably effective in normal crime control; what makes this different?
For one thing, the fact that no crime is involved. A "crime" without a victim -- someone whose rights were violated -- is no crime at all (whether it's immoral or not), and no one can have rights which violate the rights of someone else. Thus, true property rights and rights of association and communication trump so-called 'rights' to copyright, which are in fact no rights at all, but the violation of rights.
Second, as another poster mentioned, no conviction is required.
So the wrong side won the US civil war? Just checking. You're allowed to say 'yes,' I know it wasn't really about slavery (though you have to ask yourself whether the revolution wasn't, given the timing).
Yes, of course the wrong side won. Of course, neither side was libertarian, but the North was the aggressor against the South. It was the North which invaded and sought to conquer another country, and the South which was defending its own territory, attempting to repel a foreign invader.
It also wasn't a civil war, of course, since a civil war is one between factions in the same country, vying for control of the same government or territory. The political bonds between the North and the South had been severed, therefore any war between them could not, by definition, have been a 'civil war'.
By "the revolution", what do you mean? Are you referring to the revolution of 1776? No, it wasn't about slavery. Or are you calling the secession of the Southern states prior to the "civil war" a revolution? It wasn't one. In a revolution, one faction seeks control of, or seeks to change, a government. In a secession, a party to that government simply seeks to leave. The secession was not about slavery either. Some said it was, even at the time, but tariffs were a much greater factor. The tariffs at the time were a proportionately greater burden on the south. In his inaugural address, Lincoln threatened invasion of the south if the tariffs were not paid.
Copyrights do not protect the rights of creators. There is no such thing as "intellectual property". Copyright and patent laws are in fact a violation of property rights, as they force individual owners of property from using and manipulating their own property as they choose. Look up Stephan Kinsella.
You think so? The states were "free to leave" too -- they never gave up their sovereignty -- but look what happened when they tried. I wouldn't bet on it being any different this time.