Jump to content


SOCAL's Razor


Recommended Posts

Sounds like a bunch of psycho-babble to me. Nothing against this Michael Shermer guy, but it's hard for me to take anyone who considers himself a “cycling enthusiast” seriously. Better at rationalizing away problems in their world view? Maybe, but maybe they're just better at thinking of how things would work that have never, before, been attempted. There are a number of explanations, and even though I was joking about taking a cycling enthusiast seriously, it is hard for me to take psychological theories with anything but a grain of salt. Tom Cruise was right. LINK

 

I also think there are some people in here that really don't want SOCAL to be right about anything because it would mean they're wrong. Notice that I didn't name any names, or suggest I meant you or anyone else. At times, though, it feels like things have gotten to the point where people aren't even trying to understand where he's coming from; they're just trying to end the discussion quickly because they don't want to read it anymore. It's kind of sad really.

Here's the thing about your last paragraph there.

 

SOCAL is dead set in his point of view and is inherently against changing it, as anyone can tell from his posts. There are others on this board that are vehemently against what SOCAL is saying. These "others" will provide proof or real life examples to back up what they are saying, and then SOCAL will provide his own proof or suggestions to back up what he is saying. We're in a situation with this discussion where neither side will give the other any ground. We're also to the point where the discussion is being taken out of context or the same things are just getting repeated over, and over, and over again until they just become useless commodities in the eyes of the reader.

 

Once you hit a brick wall with someone, you don't feel like continuing the discussion any more, am I right? Some are just sick of talking about. SOCAL won't be sick of talking about it because he's in the minority and there are people here that he can suggest his opinions too. However, the majority just doesn't want to hear it anymore.

 

Sometimes, you can only say too much where any further correspondence is futile and mundane. I believe that's the wall people have hit. It's not sad by any means. It's knowing when to stop..when a discussion has run it's course. It seems like there are plenty of people that "understand where he is coming from", they're just tired of listening to it. And that is nothing against SOCAL, because it's a free country and he's entitled to his opinions. But another important cog in our society is being able to listen to what you want and choose what you want to believe. I, for one, am just sick of listening.

I understand where you're coming from. For me personally though, I'm not really reading forums in this area to persuade other people. When I ask SOCAL a question, it really just comes from me wanting to understand where he's coming from, and find out what his stance on the matter is. I'll agree that SOCAL is pretty dead-set in his political beliefs, and I wouldn't say he's blameless, but when you're in a politics and religion thread, is it really necessary to try to persuade someone of your beliefs and pick knits over various things? In some ways, I think it detracts from what could be a better atmosphere on this board. I'm just saying that I see a lot of bickering over various things, and some of that is healthy, but sometimes it gets ridiculous. From your responses, I gather you feel the same way there. The real problem is not just SOCAL, but neither group wants to give an inch, so both sides keep rehashing the same stuff. It's partly our competitive instinct, but it could turn out to be beneficial. I don't know. I just think that if there's something you disagree with someone else on, there's no reason to get on the defensive about it. I think that's a part of what creates this never ending discussion over the same points. I just think you should present SOCAL with examples of why you don't think something will work, and ask him how he can reconcile that. Some people have done a good job of it from what I've read, but I've also seen some pretty defensive posts.

Well, by the time I had gotten into the thread originally, SOCAL was pretty fired up, and when I tried to offer my opinion he quickly shot it down in a rather rude way. I called him out on it and he apologized. But, it still just kind of shut me off from the whole discussion. It just kind of felt like my opinions weren't being seriously considered.

 

Like I have said though, I think people have presented SOCAL examples but then he just throws them back. Then, SOCAL throws out his opinion and then people throw it back at him. It's just too much of a circular mess for me, personally, to want to continue discussing it, and I think that's the point where other people have arrived as well.

 

Even though I am not comparing SOCAL to the WBC, this argument is very similar to a discussion with them. No matter what either side tells the other, neither one is ever going to agree with the other.

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

So, I never added to this debate, but I came across an article this afternoon on anarchy in Africa. Specifically, this reports on Somalia, but I have to think that much of Africa can relate. After reading other's comments about how services would be provided, ie roads, schools, etc and mobs running around rampant in an anarchist society, I found this article interesting. I have to say, I don't think I want any part of it.

 

Living in Somalia's anarchy

As Somalia's new government prepares to return to restore order after years of anarchy, the BBC News website's Joseph Winter reports from Mogadishu on life with no central control.

 

Somalia is the only country in the world where there is no government.

 

Seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote that "life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", if there is no central authority.

 

Few Somalis have probably heard of Hobbes but most would agree with his description - except for "solitary", as family and clan ties remain extremely strong.

 

The last government, of Siad Barre, was toppled in 1991.

 

Since then Somalia has been divided into a myriad of different fiefdoms controlled by rival warlords, who occasionally clash for territory.

 

So what is life like after more than a decade without a government?

 

No public spending

 

Driving 50km (30 miles) from one of the airstrips near the capital, Mogadishu, to the city, you pass seven checkpoints, each run by a different militia.

 

The former Coca Cola factory At each of these "border crossings" all passenger vehicles and goods lorries must pay an "entry fee", ranging from $3 - $300, depending on the value of the goods being carried - and what the militiamen think they can get away with.

 

There is no pretence that any of this money goes on public services, such as health, education or roads.

 

Much of it is spent by the militiamen on khat, an addictive stimulant, whose green leaves they can chew for hours on end.

 

Those who can afford it travel with several armed guards - and then you can pass the road-blocks unmolested.

 

"I am from Somalia and to live without government is the most dangerous system"

Abdow, Vingaker,Sweden

 

Life in Somalia: Have your say

 

Much of south Mogadishu appears deceptively calm but parts, including the north, remain too dangerous to visit.

 

While Siad Barre is commonly referred to as a dictator and people were press-ganged into fighting wars with Somalia's neighbours, some now remember with fondness that schools and hospitals were free.

 

It is now estimated that only about 15% of children of primary-school age actually go to school, compared with at least 75% even in Somalia's poor neighbours.

 

In Mogadishu, many schools, colleges, universities and even government buildings, have become camps for the people who fled to the capital seeking sanctuary from fighting elsewhere.

 

Kidnappings

 

Makeshift shelters made from branches, orange plastic sheets and old pieces of metal cover what were once manicured lawns outside schools and offices.

 

"Somalia is a pure free market"

Somalia-based diplomat

 

And since some of the militiamen started to kidnap aid workers, demanding huge ransom fees, many of the aid agencies have pulled out, leaving many of those in the camps without any assistance whatsoever.

 

"Some of my children sell nuts in the street to earn some money. We can't afford to send them to school," says Ladan Barow Nur with resignation, as she cooks chapattis for the evening meal on an open fire just outside her tent.

 

"My husband helps shoppers carry their goods in the market but it's not enough. We're always hungry."

 

She lives in what was a school in Mogadishu. There are no toilets in what is now a refugee camp, and in the rainy season, diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, diarrhoea and dysentery spread quickly.

 

Some schools, universities and hospitals continue to operate but they are mostly privately run and charge fees.

 

The many thousands of people like Mrs Ladan are unable to pay the $3 it costs to see a doctor and so people die of diseases which could be easily prevented or cured.

 

Market forces

 

"Somalia is a pure free market," one diplomat told me.

 

And the central Bakara market certainly looks to be thriving. Some businesses, such as telecoms, are also doing well, with mobile phone masts and internet cafes among the few new structures in Mogadishu, a city where many buildings still bear the scars of the heavy fighting between rival militias of the early 1990s.

Somali money But is a pure free market a good thing?

 

Speaking from a theoretical point of view, some economists might say so, but in the very harsh reality of Mogadishu, it means guns and other military hardware are freely available in a market not far from the city centre.

 

I was advised that it was too dangerous to visit, as customers were constantly firing the weapons to make sure they work before buying them.

 

The cost of an AK-47 is the equivalent of a survey of business confidence in more stable countries.

 

Following the election of a new president in October, the price fell, as people anticipated that militias may soon no longer be able to operate with impunity.

 

But a month on, with a government still not named, nor a clear plan for how or when President Abdullahi Yusuf and his team will even go to Mogadishu, let alone get anything done, the price of a weapon has been creeping higher.

 

Passports for sale

 

The lack of a government also means that the US dollar is the currency of choice - even refugees beg in hard currency.

 

Somali shillings are still used but the notes only come in one denomination - 1,000, worth seven US cents.

 

Somali passport Three types of notes are in circulation - some still survive from the last government, some were printed by the newly elected President Yusuf, when he was in charge of his native Puntland region, and others were commissioned by private businessmen.

 

At first, some traders in Mogadishu refused to accept the new notes but now they are all used side-by-side.

 

Similarly, the printing of passports has been privatised. For just $80 and in less than 24 hours, I became a Somali citizen, born in Mogadishu.

 

As I had omitted to travel with any passport-sized photos, my supplier kindly left the laminate for that page intact, for me to stick down at home.

 

For a slightly higher fee, I was offered a diplomatic passport, with my choice of posting or ministerial job.

 

"There is nothing you can do when kids with guns steal everything you have, even your clothes"

Former Somali army major

 

With passports and guns freely available, those wanting to launch terror attacks have just about everything they need.

 

And some fear that in the absence of any other authority, terror training camps could be set up in Somalia.

 

Although Somalis are able to survive and some are even prospering, everyone I spoke to in Mogadishu is desperate for a return to some semblance of law and order - schools and hospitals can only follow security on the new government's to-do list.

 

"I just want a government, any government will do," one man told me.

 

We all seem to enjoy criticising our governments but life in Somalia shows the alternative is far worse, as Hobbes wrote 350 years ago.

 

A former Somali army major, now a refugee in London, summed up life without a government very well.

 

"There is nothing you can do when kids with guns steal everything you have, even your clothes. I'm from a small clan, so I was unable to fight back," he said.

 

"Here, there are rules which people respect and so you can get on with your life in peace."

Link to comment

So, I never added to this debate, but I came across an article this afternoon on anarchy in Africa. Specifically, this reports on Somalia, but I have to think that much of Africa can relate. After reading other's comments about how services would be provided, ie roads, schools, etc and mobs running around rampant in an anarchist society, I found this article interesting. I have to say, I don't think I want any part of it.

 

Living in Somalia's anarchy

As Somalia's new government prepares to return to restore order after years of anarchy, the BBC News website's Joseph Winter reports from Mogadishu on life with no central control.

 

Somalia is the only country in the world where there is no government.

 

Seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote that "life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", if there is no central authority.

 

Few Somalis have probably heard of Hobbes but most would agree with his description - except for "solitary", as family and clan ties remain extremely strong.

 

The last government, of Siad Barre, was toppled in 1991.

 

Since then Somalia has been divided into a myriad of different fiefdoms controlled by rival warlords, who occasionally clash for territory.

 

So what is life like after more than a decade without a government?

 

No public spending

 

Driving 50km (30 miles) from one of the airstrips near the capital, Mogadishu, to the city, you pass seven checkpoints, each run by a different militia.

 

The former Coca Cola factory At each of these "border crossings" all passenger vehicles and goods lorries must pay an "entry fee", ranging from $3 - $300, depending on the value of the goods being carried - and what the militiamen think they can get away with.

 

There is no pretence that any of this money goes on public services, such as health, education or roads.

 

Much of it is spent by the militiamen on khat, an addictive stimulant, whose green leaves they can chew for hours on end.

 

Those who can afford it travel with several armed guards - and then you can pass the road-blocks unmolested.

 

"I am from Somalia and to live without government is the most dangerous system"

Abdow, Vingaker,Sweden

 

Life in Somalia: Have your say

 

Much of south Mogadishu appears deceptively calm but parts, including the north, remain too dangerous to visit.

 

While Siad Barre is commonly referred to as a dictator and people were press-ganged into fighting wars with Somalia's neighbours, some now remember with fondness that schools and hospitals were free.

 

It is now estimated that only about 15% of children of primary-school age actually go to school, compared with at least 75% even in Somalia's poor neighbours.

 

In Mogadishu, many schools, colleges, universities and even government buildings, have become camps for the people who fled to the capital seeking sanctuary from fighting elsewhere.

 

Kidnappings

 

Makeshift shelters made from branches, orange plastic sheets and old pieces of metal cover what were once manicured lawns outside schools and offices.

 

"Somalia is a pure free market"

Somalia-based diplomat

 

And since some of the militiamen started to kidnap aid workers, demanding huge ransom fees, many of the aid agencies have pulled out, leaving many of those in the camps without any assistance whatsoever.

 

"Some of my children sell nuts in the street to earn some money. We can't afford to send them to school," says Ladan Barow Nur with resignation, as she cooks chapattis for the evening meal on an open fire just outside her tent.

 

"My husband helps shoppers carry their goods in the market but it's not enough. We're always hungry."

 

She lives in what was a school in Mogadishu. There are no toilets in what is now a refugee camp, and in the rainy season, diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, diarrhoea and dysentery spread quickly.

 

Some schools, universities and hospitals continue to operate but they are mostly privately run and charge fees.

 

The many thousands of people like Mrs Ladan are unable to pay the $3 it costs to see a doctor and so people die of diseases which could be easily prevented or cured.

 

Market forces

 

"Somalia is a pure free market," one diplomat told me.

 

And the central Bakara market certainly looks to be thriving. Some businesses, such as telecoms, are also doing well, with mobile phone masts and internet cafes among the few new structures in Mogadishu, a city where many buildings still bear the scars of the heavy fighting between rival militias of the early 1990s.

Somali money But is a pure free market a good thing?

 

Speaking from a theoretical point of view, some economists might say so, but in the very harsh reality of Mogadishu, it means guns and other military hardware are freely available in a market not far from the city centre.

 

I was advised that it was too dangerous to visit, as customers were constantly firing the weapons to make sure they work before buying them.

 

The cost of an AK-47 is the equivalent of a survey of business confidence in more stable countries.

 

Following the election of a new president in October, the price fell, as people anticipated that militias may soon no longer be able to operate with impunity.

 

But a month on, with a government still not named, nor a clear plan for how or when President Abdullahi Yusuf and his team will even go to Mogadishu, let alone get anything done, the price of a weapon has been creeping higher.

 

Passports for sale

 

The lack of a government also means that the US dollar is the currency of choice - even refugees beg in hard currency.

 

Somali shillings are still used but the notes only come in one denomination - 1,000, worth seven US cents.

 

Somali passport Three types of notes are in circulation - some still survive from the last government, some were printed by the newly elected President Yusuf, when he was in charge of his native Puntland region, and others were commissioned by private businessmen.

 

At first, some traders in Mogadishu refused to accept the new notes but now they are all used side-by-side.

 

Similarly, the printing of passports has been privatised. For just $80 and in less than 24 hours, I became a Somali citizen, born in Mogadishu.

 

As I had omitted to travel with any passport-sized photos, my supplier kindly left the laminate for that page intact, for me to stick down at home.

 

For a slightly higher fee, I was offered a diplomatic passport, with my choice of posting or ministerial job.

 

"There is nothing you can do when kids with guns steal everything you have, even your clothes"

Former Somali army major

 

With passports and guns freely available, those wanting to launch terror attacks have just about everything they need.

 

And some fear that in the absence of any other authority, terror training camps could be set up in Somalia.

 

Although Somalis are able to survive and some are even prospering, everyone I spoke to in Mogadishu is desperate for a return to some semblance of law and order - schools and hospitals can only follow security on the new government's to-do list.

 

"I just want a government, any government will do," one man told me.

 

We all seem to enjoy criticising our governments but life in Somalia shows the alternative is far worse, as Hobbes wrote 350 years ago.

 

A former Somali army major, now a refugee in London, summed up life without a government very well.

 

"There is nothing you can do when kids with guns steal everything you have, even your clothes. I'm from a small clan, so I was unable to fight back," he said.

 

"Here, there are rules which people respect and so you can get on with your life in peace."

Why would anyone want to live like that? Besides, how anyone can equate or offer the failures and intervention of government; along with the poverty, irresponsibility and destruction it entails; as proof against anarchy is beyond me. Anarchy is not, as your article and Hobbs claim; a society void of order, a "poor, nasty or brutish life" or any other depiction of violence, but rather the radical notion that nobody else is your property and that you have no right to initiate violence or theft against anyone to fulfill your subjective whims.

 

If you somehow disagree, here's a good one for you written by Georgetown Professor John Hasnas: The Obviousness of Anarchy

Link to comment

Why would anyone want to live like that? Besides, how anyone can equate or offer the failures and intervention of government; along with the poverty, irresponsibility and destruction it entails; as proof against anarchy is beyond me. Anarchy is not, as your article and Hobbs claim; a society void of order, a "poor, nasty or brutish life" or any other depiction of violence, but rather the radical notion that nobody else is your property and that you have no right to initiate violence or theft against anyone to fulfill your subjective whims.

 

If you somehow disagree, here's a good one for you written by Georgetown Professor John Hasnas: The Obviousness of Anarchy

 

By the logic of this definition, even if government were to disappear for 1,000 years starting tomorrow, any bad thing which happened in the (anarchy?) society during that time period could be construed as a failure of government, not a product of anarchy, and upon the return of government it would be blamed for anything bad which happened in its absence. You seem to have constructed a definition in which government=evil and even in its absence or inability to act over extended periods of time it is still to blame.

 

According to Wikipedia, "Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.[1][2] Since the fall of Siad Barre's government in January 1991, there had been no permanent national government in Somalia."

 

Nothing about the act of abolishing any form of central government creates "the radical notion that nobody else is your property and that you have no right to initiate violence or theft against anyone to fulfill your subjective whims." People can initiate force against one another and the only thing that prevents them is a shared sense of these personal rights or the fear of reciprocal force, but as we've demonstrated a half-a-hundred times, not all people share that philosophical position and for a variety of reasons only one of which has anything to do with a government. In addition an initiating force might neither 1-share the sense of personal rights or 2-need worry about reciprocal force because they are more powerful than the force they are acting upon.

Link to comment

Why would anyone want to live like that? Besides, how anyone can equate or offer the failures and intervention of government; along with the poverty, irresponsibility and destruction it entails; as proof against anarchy is beyond me. Anarchy is not, as your article and Hobbs claim; a society void of order, a "poor, nasty or brutish life" or any other depiction of violence, but rather the radical notion that nobody else is your property and that you have no right to initiate violence or theft against anyone to fulfill your subjective whims.

 

If you somehow disagree, here's a good one for you written by Georgetown Professor John Hasnas: The Obviousness of Anarchy

 

By the logic of this definition, even if government were to disappear for 1,000 years starting tomorrow, any bad thing which happened in the (anarchy?) society during that time period could be construed as a failure of government, not a product of anarchy, and upon the return of government it would be blamed for anything bad which happened in its absence. You seem to have constructed a definition in which government=evil and even in its absence or inability to act over extended periods of time it is still to blame.

 

According to Wikipedia, "Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.[1][2] Since the fall of Siad Barre's government in January 1991, there had been no permanent national government in Somalia."

 

Nothing about the act of abolishing any form of central government creates "the radical notion that nobody else is your property and that you have no right to initiate violence or theft against anyone to fulfill your subjective whims." People can initiate force against one another and the only thing that prevents them is a shared sense of these personal rights or the fear of reciprocal force, but as we've demonstrated a half-a-hundred times, not all people share that philosophical position and for a variety of reasons only one of which has anything to do with a government. In addition an initiating force might neither 1-share the sense of personal rights or 2-need worry about reciprocal force because they are more powerful than the force they are acting upon.

That kind of thought process always led me to believe that SOCAL's belief in his ideology was always dogmatic to never be questioned. Any demonstrable evidence of refutation is not refutation against the belief but the flaws of the enemy.

 

If anything, the article about Somalia should have SOCAL doing backflips of glee because it demonstrated how the free-market stateless system would work. There are businesses thriving, people becoming wealthy due to their own choices without money being stolen by a centralized state.

Link to comment

Nothing about the act of abolishing any form of central government creates "the radical notion that nobody else is your property and that you have no right to initiate violence or theft against anyone to fulfill your subjective whims." People can initiate force against one another and the only thing that prevents them is a shared sense of these personal rights or the fear of reciprocal force, but as we've demonstrated a half-a-hundred times, not all people share that philosophical position and for a variety of reasons only one of which has anything to do with a government. In addition an initiating force might neither 1-share the sense of personal rights or 2-need worry about reciprocal force because they are more powerful than the force they are acting upon.

 

It's, honestly, a question of priorities. Anytime you gain security, you give up freedom. The only way you can have both is if you greatly diminish the effect of both. They have absolute freedom there from the sounds of it. I would certainly venture to say the freedom of our nation's people was much greater during the time of the rum-runners and mobsters. Major centralized agencies were in their infancy. In most cases government creates these people by passing laws that make their undertakings illegal. However, without government it is only natural that someone would vie for power as private armies, obviously, are in this case. Private armies did so in early Roman times too. People always will, and that's, really, the splinter in the lion's paw, to me

Link to comment

I think if we took a vote of, "Would you like to live in SOCAL's society as he describes it," the vast majority of us would vote yes. It's an ideal society of freedom and peace. The reason most of us are countering it, though, is that we know that people don't behave the way they would have to for such a society to work. As SOCAL and I decided many, many posts ago, avarice is a human trait, and while it still exists, true voluntarism is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

 

Now I'm not going to get sucked back into this. I'd hate to have to die whilst typing again. :)

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...