Van Notten explains that private law and private police function quite
well in Somalia. Property rights are also respected.
I wasn't denying that. My point was that I didn't see the difference between this and many small countries. Though the article lacks details, it appears that the clans control various geographical regions and appear to have the same monopoly on force that any government does.
The scale is smaller, and I think it's reasonable to say it is effectively a dictatorial minarchy, but I don't see how it could be called anarchy.
Here's how, Steve. Each country in the world is an entity within an anarchy. Why? Because there is no hierarchical power that unites them. Each clan in Somalia is an entity within an anarchy, because there is no higher power that unites them. Each clan itself may in fact be a dictatorship, I don't know. Anarchy is more prevalant in Somalia than elsewhere, and the top most levels of government are very small. Who knows? Maybe in some clans, anarchy is complete.
The scale is smaller, and I think it's reasonable to say it is
effectively a dictatorial minarchy, but I don't see how it could be
called anarchy.
Here's how, Steve. Each country in the world is an entity within an
anarchy. Why? Because there is no hierarchical power that unites
them. Each clan in Somalia is an entity within an anarchy, because
there is no higher power that unites them. Each clan itself may in fact
be a dictatorship, I don't know. Anarchy is more prevalant in Somalia
than elsewhere, and the top most levels of government are very small.
Who knows?
I see. So it's not "Stateless" it's just a collection of smaller states?
Maybe in some clans, anarchy is complete.
Could you describe that situation a bit more? Do you mean the geographical region of each state would shrink to a house or a particular room in a house?
The scale is smaller, and I think it's reasonable to say it is
effectively a dictatorial minarchy, but I don't see how it could be
called anarchy.
Here's how, Steve. Each country in the world is an entity within an
anarchy. Why? Because there is no hierarchical power that unites
them. Each clan in Somalia is an entity within an anarchy, because
there is no higher power that unites them. Each clan itself may in fact
be a dictatorship, I don't know. Anarchy is more prevalant in Somalia
than elsewhere, and the top most levels of government are very small.
Who knows?
I see. So it's not "Stateless" it's just a collection of smaller states?
Yes, that is my take on it.
Maybe in some clans, anarchy is complete.
Could you describe that situation a bit more? Do you mean the geographical region of each state would shrink to a house or a particular room in a house?
I don't see things geographically. I'd say that it's every man for himself.
People can fight, negotiate, use mutually-agreed upon (up front) 3rd parties like title companies, insurance companies, arbitrators, etc. and use a plethera of other means of interacting and managing conflict. Contracts would need to be enforcable, so if I wanted to get into a long-term arrangement with someone I didn't quite trust, I would negotiate a contract between us and negotiate who the enforcer is. I imagine there would be companies that would specialize in this type of thing.
I see no value in having a un-agreed upon 3rd party "government" having a monopoly on the conflict resolution / arbitration / enforcement business.
People can fight, negotiate, use mutually-agreed upon (up front) 3rd
parties like title companies, insurance companies, arbitrators, etc. and
use a plethera of other means of interacting and managing conflict.
Contracts would need to be enforcable, so if I wanted to get into a
long-term arrangement with someone I didn't quite trust, I would
negotiate a contract between us and negotiate who the enforcer is.
What about conflicts that arise outside of specific business engagements? For example, one person decides to burn garbage in their yard and my the noxious (possibly hazardous) fumes descend on their neighbors.
Is the solution for the neighbors to hire a hit man?
Is a Somalian system was used, could any sufficiently large group pool they're money together to assassinate whomever they cared to as they would have the resources to pay for damages with little cost to each member?
People can fight, negotiate, use mutually-agreed upon (up front) 3rd
parties like title companies, insurance companies, arbitrators, etc. and
use a plethera of other means of interacting and managing conflict.
Contracts would need to be enforcable, so if I wanted to get into a
long-term arrangement with someone I didn't quite trust, I would
negotiate a contract between us and negotiate who the enforcer is.
What about conflicts that arise outside of specific business engagements? For example, one person decides to burn garbage in their yard and my the noxious (possibly hazardous) fumes descend on their neighbors.
Is the solution for the neighbors to hire a hit man?
Is a Somalian system was used, could any sufficiently large group pool they're money together to assassinate whomever they cared to as they would have the resources to pay for damages with little cost to each member?
You know as well as I that anyone can do whatever they want, if they can physically do it.
I think you still assume that anarchy has some sort of socially-accepted principal behind it, some government, some rules, some law that everyone has to agree to. It doesn't.
If you want to know what I would do in such a case, if it were my neighbor, I'd start by finding out WHY he is doing it, and try to help him find another solution. I'd let him know that it bothered me, and I'd look for ways to offer him some thing in exchange for stopping. I'd consider places to move to. If he was obstinant, I might put my bass amp over near the property line so I could play bass at 3 AM, make sure he sees it, and give him a knowing look. Maybe I would move if it was too much of a problem. Hiring a hit man would be the last thing on my list.
If a Somalian system was used, could any sufficiently large group pool
they're money together to assassinate whomever they cared to as they
would have the resources to pay for damages with little cost to each
member?
You know as well as I that anyone can do whatever they want, if they can
physically do it.
Under our system we imprison those involved. In the Somalian system, they only need to compensate the victims. Thus my question.
If you want to know what I would do in such a case, if it were my
neighbor, I'd start by finding out WHY he is doing it, and try to help
him find another solution. I'd let him know that it bothered me, and
I'd look for ways to offer him some thing in exchange for stopping. I'd
consider places to move to. If he was obstinant, I might put my bass
amp over near the property line so I could play bass at 3 AM, make sure
he sees it, and give him a knowing look. Maybe I would move if it was
too much of a problem. Hiring a hit man would be the last thing on my list.
I can see we're not going to make any progress in this discussion. It's been interesting though and thanks for your input.
A few minutes ago I posted a reminder about the
Political Chat tonight. I just realized that I didn't
change the 'Subject' before I sent it, so it probably
contained the subject of a discussion thread.
Some people go through their e-mails and delete items
based on the subject. I'm sending this as another
reminder about the Polical Chat to those who may have
deleted my earlier one, because the subject didn't
contain "Political Chat."
I'm not going to repeat everything I said in my
earlier e-mail, but there is a Chat tonight, and I
will be checking back later on in the day to see who
will be atending and what topics people wish to
discuss. Thanks.