Page 1 of 3

The Stability of Anarchist Societies

Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:05 pm
by Hogeye
Barbara wrote:I have never been fond of chaos, nor do I care for the death and destruction that comes with the short period of anarchy before the "strong man" despot rises to the top and takes over - nor the death and destruction after.
Yes, that's what often happens when the culture of voluntaryism is absent or insufficiently strong. You seem to be taking the Russian Revolution model, where Czarist authoritarianism was ubiquitous, and the anarchists who so foolishly allied with the Bolsheviks were promptly eliminated after the revolution. Those anarchists should have listened to their founder, Michael Bakunin, and never trusted the Marxists.

But the places where anarchism actually occurred, e.g. the ones in the Past and present anarchist communities Wikipedia article, did not end up that way. From the Icelandic Commonwealth (930 to 1262) to Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681-1690) the succeeding scenerio was not a strongman despot, but more mundane reasons similar to the end of statist societies.

A modern example may help. Somalia was colonized by foreign States, then saddled with a brutal dictator when the colonial powers left. Finally in 1991 they threw off the dictator, and have been stateless ever since. I consider it highly unlikely that any one strongman can get control of Somalia any time soon. I'd say that Somalia is more resistent to strongmen than most statist societies. The UN is trying like hell to install some warlord from Puntland as "president", but so far their effort has beed thankfully unsuccessful. Of course, you'd never know this from US mainstream media - they're stuck in a Black Hawk Down timewarp. Here's what's really happining:

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It

by Yumi Kim

Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:54 pm
by Dardedar
DAR
Somolia's "seeming" anarchy is something to aspire to? The people are "loving it"? Good grief.

Hogeye cites Yumi, who quotes in his article:
"As even the CIA factbook admits:
"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."
Here is the very next part, which Yumi carefully snipped:
"The ongoing civil disturbances and clan rivalries, however, have interfered with any broad-based economic development and international aid arrangements. In 2004 and 2005 Somalia's overdue financial obligations to the IMF continued to grow. Statistics on Somalia's GDP, growth, per capita income, and inflation should be viewed skeptically. In late December 2004, a major tsunami took an estimated 150 lives and caused destruction of properity in coastal areas."
And where does this 1 billion or so activity come from? Consider:
But where, I asked Dini, does all the money to support this economy come from? There are few exports to speak of, especially since the Saudi Arabian government has twice banned the import of Somali livestock—a particular disaster for Somaliland—on the grounds that the animals are infected with Rift Valley fever, which can be fatal to humans. (UN experts, however, dispute the claim of infection.) Rice, the staple diet, is imported, along with a huge volume of qat, the mildly stimulating shrub chewed by many Somalis, flown in daily from Kenya.

"We live off the international community—of Somalis," Dini answered with a chuckle. "That is where all the money in the country comes from." There are more than a million Somalis living and working throughout the world, a diaspora accelerated by the disorders of the nineties. Dutifully conscious of their obligations to family at home, these expatriates send back as much as 700 million dollars a year, "20 million dollars a month into Mogadishu alone," says Dini.
SOURCE

Judged by the normative measurements, standard of living, health/disease, infant mortality, literacy, longevity etc., Somolia is a hell on earth and some of that is not even worse due to it being helped by the non-anarchist societies which help alleviate some of the hell.

Some basics on the Somalia mess. Here's what's "really happening" in Somalia which I'll back up with 11 lines of evidence.

Source, CIA Factbook except as noted:

1) Death rate: 16.97 deaths/1,000 population (2005 est.)

(19th worst in the world)

2) Age structure:
65 years and over: 2.6% (male 96,256/female 129,182) (2005 est.)

They die young, the US has 12.4% of it's population "65 years and over."

3) Infant mortality rate: total: 116.7 deaths/1,000 live births

(7th worst on the planet)

4) Mortality rate for the age 5 and under is: 225.

The site that gave this number compared it to Canada's rate which is: 6

LINK


5) Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 48.09 years (2005 est.)

That makes them 204th out of 226 for lowest life expectancy.

This is what people are "loving?"

6) Total fertility rate: 6.84 children born/woman (2005 est.)

That's third worst on the planet. Women only have this many babies when they are illiterate, broke and have no other choices. This is not a successful society.

7) Major infectious diseases: degree of risk: very high

food or waterborne diseases: bacterial and protozoal diarrhea, hepatitis A and E, and typhoid fever
vectorborne diseases: malaria and dengue fever are high risks in some locations
water contact disease: schistosomiasis
animal contact disease: rabies (2004)

8.) Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write

total population: 37.8% (another site puts it at 24% total and 14% for women)

Sorry, that is pathetic.

9) Their gross national income per capita? US$130 (2003)

SOURCE

The CIA factbook gives, GDP - per capital:

purchasing power parity - $600 (2005 est.)

That puts them in 229th place out of a total of 232.

10) Judicial branch:
following the breakdown of the central government, most regions have reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, either secular, traditional clan-based arbitration, or Islamic (Shari'a) law with a provision for appeal of all sentences

Bold mine.

11) Exchange rates: note: the Republic of Somaliland, a self-declared independent country not recognized by any foreign government, issues its own currency, the Somaliland shilling

Somali shillings per US dollar - 11,000 (November 2000),

***
Bottomline:

It is a sad day for the anarchy sales pitch when those peddling it have to stoop to spinning Somolia as a place where people are "loving it."

D.

Lovin it!
.
Image
.
.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:47 am
by Hogeye
Darrel, I don't see that you are disagreeing with anything I wrote. I agree that Somalia is a very poor country. Do you agree with my points?

1) Anarchist Somalia is resistant to strongman despots, and contra Barbara did not have a "short period of anarchy before the strong man despot rises to the top and takes over." In fact it's been stateless for 15 years.

2) Compared to the neighboring States, Somalia is doing well economically.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:52 am
by Barbara Fitzpatrick
Thanks, Dar, you saved me from doing it. Somalia is still too chaotic to have achieved the strongman despot. It it so poor, and has so many tribal warlords of relatively equal strength, that it may never achieve the stability of a despot. This is not a positive situation. For ordinary people, especially women and children, even a despot is better than anarchy.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:33 pm
by Hogeye
Barbara wrote:Somalia ... may never achieve the stability of a despot.
We hope!

Barbara, did you notice the similarity between the Celtic tuath and the Xeer jalib? Interesting, isn't it?
Barbara wrote:For ordinary people, especially women and children, even a despot is better than anarchy.
This is your bias talking. Evidence shows that the Somali people, especially women and children, are better off now in a stateless society than they were under the previous dictatorship, and better off than their African neighbors subjected to States.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:09 pm
by Barbara Fitzpatrick
Hogeye, did you bother to read DAR's stats? Almost 7 kids per woman, with a 16.97/1000 infant mortality rate and a 225/1000 (mortality rates normally given per 1000) for kids 5 & under, average life expectancy under 50, very high rate of major infectious diseases, and a female literacy rate of 14% - those diseases are caused by bad water. His stats didn't mention starvation, but food has been at a premium in Somalia for 26 years that I know of (I worked on the Hunger Project when I lived in San Francisco in the 1980s). I am strongly biased against women and kids dying like that - a 3-way split as to what's going to get them first - starvation, disease due to bad water, and violence by war lord.

The tuath was a very complex tribal governmental organization. It's military worked on the militia/reserve system, in that they didn't have a standing army, but they definately had a military (they were fameous for their warriors - and were hired out as mercenaries throughout the entire Mediterranean basin). They had elected kings as administrators and a body of lawyer/judges for civil matters. I still don't know where you get the idea the Celts had no State.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:57 pm
by Tamara
Hogeye wrote: This is your bias talking. Evidence shows that the Somali people, especially women and children, are better off now in a stateless society than they were under the previous dictatorship, and better off than their African neighbors subjected to States.
What evidence, from where? Have you even bothered to check? I don't think so because I just did and after looking up Somalia's neighbors, Ethiopia and Kenya, I found that the mortality rates were lower in those countries and the literacy was higher. I looked at Sudan too and the results were the same. Instead of just asserting "evidence" why not provide some?

stats found here

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:13 pm
by Dardedar
Hogeye wrote:Darrel, I don't see that you are disagreeing with anything I wrote.
DAR
That's truly amazing. Then you too must think that Somalia is a human hell on earth, because that's what I wrote. Along with a few other things.
HOG
I agree that Somalia is a very poor country. Do you agree with my points?
1) Anarchist Somalia is resistant to strongman despots,...
DAR
To the extent this true, it is unfortunate. I agree with Barbara that they would be better off, (perhaps slightly depending on the evilness of the despot) with a "strongman despot" and some sembalance of order rather than the anarchy and warlords running amok. The idea that the people in Somalia are "lovin it" is just idiotic. The irony is that you get to sit here in the lap of "statist" luxury and fantasize about some imaginary and patently false dream state (no pun) of Somalian anarchy, while these people wallow in hell and have no such luxury and would give anything to live in on of the 200+ state ruled societies that have profoundly better stats in every single quality of life indicator.
HOG
and contra Barbara did not have a "short period of anarchy before the strong man despot rises to the top and takes over." In fact it's been stateless for 15 years.
DAR
It's not so black and white. Somalia suffers under multi-despots/warlords and MAXI mess, as I have referenced above.
2) Compared to the neighboring States, Somalia is doing well economically.
DAR
Either you didn't read my post or your dogmatic anarchy beliefs won't let you take the information in. Somalia is not doing well economically. One of their dollars is worth less than a single tissue square on a roll of my toilet paper. That is to say, if they had single denominations of their currency (and it was nice and soft) it would be cheaper for me buy their money and wipe my ass with it than to go with the normal Quilted Northern I have in stock. That's not one of the signs of a country that is doing well economically. I cited several other examples above but you don't respond directly to any of the points I made, as usual.

D.
---------------------------
Image
.
.
Image
.
August 1992, Baidoa, Somalia --- Three gaunt Somali boys in a shelled-out house during the famine. The hunger crisis resulted from Somalia's civil war, which began in the 1980s when warlord factions joined together to overthrow then president Siad Barre, who finally lost power in 1991. Since then power struggles between warlords have ravaged the country with famine. --- Image by © Peter Turnley/CORBIS
.
.
He forgot to add: But they are "Lovin it."
.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:20 pm
by Tamara
First Published 2006-03-24, Last Updated 2006-03-24 14:08:02

32 killed in two days of clan fighting in Somalia


Uneasy calm returns to Mogadishu after two days of battle between two militia groups over ownership of piece of land.
snip

At least 33 people were killed, hundreds wounded and thousands displaced when similar groups clashed in southern Mogadishu last month.

Somalia has been wracked by chronic unrest with warlords and rival militias fighting for control of unruly fiefdoms since the 1991 overthrow of dictator Mohamed Siad Barre.

read the rest here

Image
*************

I'm sure not going to be signing up for this kind of "freedom" any time soon.

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:32 am
by Hogeye
Hogeye> Compared to the neighboring States, Somalia is doing well economically.

Darrel> Either you didn't read my post or your dogmatic anarchy beliefs won't let you take the information in. Somalia is not doing well economically.
The reading comprehension thing: You missed the words "Compared to neighboring States."

You demonstrate my observation that US media (and USAmericans who eat the media's shit) are stuck in a Black Hawk Down time warp. Wake up! Somalia has changed since 1992, the date on your pictures. Why don't you show a picture of a starving Jew from a concentration camp and say its an example of modern Germany? Your pictures show the failure of statism - the terrible situation after the brutal dictatorship overthrown in 1991.

Tamara did much better, and found some recent news. Now, Tamara, compare that to Ethiopia or another of Somalia's neighbors. Compare it with Sudan, where the government currently engaging in genocide. Somalia looks good in these comparisons.

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:40 am
by Tamara
Hogeye wrote: Now, Tamara, compare that to Ethiopia or another of Somalia's neighbors. Compare it with Sudan, where the government currently engaging in genocide. Somalia looks good in these comparisons.
If you were to read my entry about 4 entries ago you would see that this is already addressed. Somalia looks good in no comparisons that I have found. Instead of just repeating empty assertions why not provide some evidence like Darrel and I have?

Also, Darrel just mentioned to me that the main ridiculous point of this whole thread was the idea that people in Somalia are "lovin' it". I wonder if you would consider living in that wonderful land of famine, death and illiteracy? Since you seem to think that life there is really so much better than in state run countries I don't see why you'd want to stay in "the evil empire" one more second when the bliss of Somalian anarchy awaits.

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:13 pm
by Hogeye
Barbara wrote:I still don't know where you get the idea the Celts had no State.
Def: State - an organization with an effective monopoly on the legitimate/legal use of force in a particular geographic area.

Since Celts could switch tuaths, their "government" was not a State. There is no geographic monopoly if someone can switch jurisdictions, hence no State. Do you understand now?

Tamara wrote:Darrel just mentioned to me that the main ridiculous point of this whole thread was the idea that people in Somalia are "lovin' it".
No, this thread is about stability in an anarchist societies. Barbara had claimed that anarchies are short-lived and quickly become strongman dictatorships. I pointed out historical examples where that did not happen, and gave Somalia as a modern example, refuting her claim. Somalia is simply a counter-example to her immediate despotism claim. I don't know why Darrel got sidetracked by the title of a cited article - it's not really relevant to the stability question.

Here is a comparison chart with Somalia, Kenya, Ethopia, and Djibouti: http://www.somalishir.org/economy/econo ... omalia.htm
Somalia has the worst infant mortality rate, but compares favorably to Kenya in life expectency and GDP. They ask, "Since Somalia and Ethiopia ended their wars of liberation in 1991, but Ethiopia has had a functional democratic government since then whereas Somalia has had no national government since then, why is it that the Somali economy has recovered so strongly despite lack of a national government?"

I think the economy of Somalia is doing a lot better than the CIA indicates. There are several reasons that the Somali economy is underreported, mainly 1) there's no State to keep tax records, and 2) a large percentage of Somalis are nomadic. Here's an article that tells how Somalia's economy was undercounted even back in the 1980's. People who have been there and/or live there tell a different story than the CIA Fact Book.
MacCallum reports that exports from Northern Somalia are now five times greater than when the central government was in place, and trade with neighboring Kenya has doubled. Reports from the mass media, which sides with those who wish to impose a central government on Somalia are somewhat less than reliable. It's little surprise that Somalia's "economic miracle" since shedding the central government is not widely reported since that knowledge would threaten the status quo of other centralized governments. - Spencer MacCallum talk
"The Somali nation abolished its central government ten years ago and became a stateless nation," the article begins. "During that time, the fears expressed by many international observers that Somalia would fall into chaos have not only not been realized, but many Somalis are finding statelessness an agreeable condition. Somalia is more peaceful, and the people are becoming more prosperous. Boosaaso, located at the tip of the Horn on the Gulf of Aden, is a case in point. When Somalia had a central government, Boosaaso was a small village. Into its port a few small fishing boats came each day to offload fish. Occasionally, a cargo vessel came in as well. Officials of the Republic crawled over these boats collecting taxes and demanding payment for every kind of service, real or imagined.

With the demise of the Republic, control passed to the local community and the port began to be managed on a commercial basis. A lively import/export trade developed and soon reached an estimated value of U.S. $15 million per year. Private enterprise provided essential public services such as trash collection and telecommunications. In eight years, the population grew from 5,000 to 150,000. Parents and teachers put up schools for their children and even built a university. In the absence of a government-run court system, the heads of extended families of contentious parties settled disputes on the basis of customary law.

While Boosaaso is a dramatic example, its experience is more the rule than the exception throughout Somalia. Somalis are thriving and prospering without a central government. Exports in 1998 were estimated to be five times greater than they had been under the Republic." - Alan Bock, Is Somalia a Model?
So, take your pick. You can believe the USEmpire's CIA line, or people who live there.

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:46 pm
by Doug
Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:The tuath was a very complex tribal governmental organization. It's military worked on the militia/reserve system, in that they didn't have a standing army, but they definately had a military (they were fameous for their warriors - and were hired out as mercenaries throughout the entire Mediterranean basin). They had elected kings as administrators and a body of lawyer/judges for civil matters. I still don't know where you get the idea the Celts had no State.
DOUG
I've asked Hoggy to back up his claim, and he doesn't try to.

Tuath Truths

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:57 pm
by Doug
Hogeye wrote:
Barbara wrote:I still don't know where you get the idea the Celts had no State.
Def: State - an organization with an effective monopoly on the legitimate/legal use of force in a particular geographic area.

Since Celts could switch tuaths, their "government" was not a State. There is no geographic monopoly if someone can switch jurisdictions, hence no State. Do you understand now?
DOUG
People with dual citizenship can switch states without moving. So the USA is not a state?

However, Celts could not decide that the local king did not have jurisdiction over their area.

And the Celts had a rigid system of kinship and rank that determined one's status and which laws applied to that person. They had a system of government and enforcement. Just because the system was tribal and not national does not mean it was an anarchy.

The ancient Greeks had a similar system, in which they called many city-states Greek, but no one government had jurisdiction over the whole of the Greek world. Each city-state had its own laws and government, just like the Celtic tribal (tuath) system. The Greeks were not anarchists, and neither were the Celts.

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:49 pm
by Dardedar
Hogeye wrote:
The reading comprehension thing: You missed the words "Compared to neighboring States."
DAR
You linked to an article saying that people living stateless in Somalia and "lovin it" and said this is what is really happening. I provided eleven lines of evidence (from your sources own source, CIA Factbook) showing that:

"Judged by the normative measurements, standard of living, health/disease, infant mortality, literacy, longevity etc., Somolia is a hell on earth...".

While not responding directly to a single point made, as usual, you instead provide this breathtaking observation: "Darrel, I don't see that you are disagreeing with anything I wrote."

I'll leave it to readers to weigh your claims regarding reading comprehension.
HOG
Somalia has changed since 1992, the date on your pictures.
DAR
All of my citations are from the latest stats available, usually a couple of years, and incidentally, the same source as the fellow you quoted who very dishonestly cherry picked a comment from this source. This is so typical in the profoundly spun (at best) material you often provide. (sigh)
HOG
Why don't you show a picture of a starving Jew from a concentration camp and say its an example of modern Germany?
DAR
You compare a span of 65 years with a span of 15 years? Tamara's picture was from March 23 of 2006. Last week. Is that fresh enough for you?
The header is:

"Lawlessness and disorder

32 killed in two days of clan fighting in Somalia

Uneasy calm returns to Mogadishu after two days of battle between two militia groups over ownership of piece of land."

This is your "stateless in Somalia and loving it?"
Your pictures show the failure of statism - the terrible situation after the brutal dictatorship overthrown in 1991.
DAR
Again, my stats are current and show Somalia to be a hell-hole when judged by all of the normative measurements of quality of life.
I don't know why Darrel got sidetracked by the title of a cited article - it's not really relevant to the stability question.
[/quote]

DAR
No, you claimed "Here's what's really happining[sic][in Somalia]:" and then provided a link to a ridiculously spun and dishonest article. I read it and roasted it. Do you actually read and consider the truthfulness of the material you reference? You should.

You claim Somalia is stable, even if that were true, how is that working out for them? As shown by my eleven lines of evidence, all standard measurements of quality of life in Somalia show it to be hell on earth.

D.
------------------------------
Does this woman look like she is "loving it"?
.
Image
.
Famine looms in southern Somalia

BBC

1999

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:19 pm
by Dardedar
HOGEYE
Now, Tamara, compare that to Ethiopia or another of Somalia's neighbors. Compare it with Sudan, where the government currently engaging in genocide. Somalia looks good in these comparisons.
DAR
Here is the comparison from your own source. Of the six indicators measured, Somalia when compared with just Ethiopia, was worse on four and better in two categories. How is that "looking good" in comparison?

Life Expectancy (Years), BETTER (43.4 to 47)

Infant Mortality Rate WORSE (110 to 132)

Under 5 Mortality Rate WORSE (173 to 224)

Maternal Mortality Rate WORSE (1,400 to 1,600)

Adult Literacy WORSE (36.3% to 17.1%)

GDP per capita BETTER ($574 to $795)
***

Of the four countries compared In your source's chart you picked the weakest of the other three to mention (Ethiopia), and even then Somalia still lost on 4 out of the 6 indicators. If you compare Somalia with the four countries in the chart, it comes in:

Next to last
Last
Last
Last
Last
Next to last

So when one actually checks your own source your claim that "Somalia looks good in these comparisons" is seen to be false.

Regarding some sembalance of an economy that Somalia does have (your sources gives vastly higher per capita GDP than two sources I have checked, this one gives $130 in 2003) this is largely skewed by a point I already cited. Again:

"We live off the international community—of Somalis," Dini answered with a chuckle. "That is where all the money in the country comes from." There are more than a million Somalis living and working throughout the world, a diaspora accelerated by the disorders of the nineties. Dutifully conscious of their obligations to family at home, these expatriates send back as much as 700 million dollars a year, "20 million dollars a month into Mogadishu alone," says Dini."

Source

That's 1/8 of the population living abroad in functional state run societies and earning dollars that are actually worth something compared to the toilet paper "Somali shillings" are worth. That is a huge prop for this impoverished group of people generating about a dollar a day or less (counting this influx of money).

Also, if there is supposed to be in improved situation due to this anarchic mess since 1992 (thoroughly debunked above) we should see in improvement in the value of their play money since then. But we see the opposite:

Somali shillings per US dollar:

5,000 (1 January 1995)

7,000 (January 1996 est.)

7,500 (November 1997 est.)

2,620 (January 1999)

11,000 (November 2000)

source provided by your article by Yumi Kim, the CIA Factbook

I notice that if I was to sell out and move to this anarchist funland of Somalia and convert my money to their currency I could be an instant billionaire, not once but twice over. About $2.2 billion.

I said earlier that the Somali dollar was worth less than a square of my Norther Quilted toliet paper but that was far too charitable. I did the math and my toliet paper costs about $1 per thousand sheets. That works out to about 11 Somali dollars just to purchase a single blessed square of American toilet paper.

Perhaps you ought to find another country to use as an example of a successful working anarchy. The facts show that it would be hard to find one worse.

D.
-----------------------------
"For Adult Literacy, Kenya ranks highest, probably due to a generally better educational system and the lack of war closing down schools for extended periods of time. Only in Somalia have schools been largely closed down for more than the last dozen years, which has lowered the Adult Literacy rate from over 60% 15 years ago to only 17.1% today, particularly when more than 50% of the population are under 18 years of age." --Ibid

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:14 pm
by Hogeye
Doug asked for evidence about whether members of a Celtic tuath could switch. I've already given it, but he apparently missed it. Here it is again:
For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has written: "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice…. There was no trace of State-administered justice."9
How then was justice secured? The basic political unit of ancient Ireland was the tuath. All "freemen" who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath's members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their "kings." An important point is that, in contrast to primitive tribes, no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath. - Rothbard, For a New Liberty, chapter 12

Barbara agrees:
Barbara wrote: Interestingly enough, the administrator (king) was elected, ... was only a military leader in time of war, and had no legislative powers. ... The reason a person or group could move from one tuath to another is tuatha were made up of derbfines, and you can always switch to a derbfine with a different great-great grandfather in common.
To reiterate the point: People could switch governments (tuaths). A person's property changed jurisdictions accordingly. Ergo, this ancient Celtic system did not have a State by the standard Weberian definition (based on geographic monopoly.)


Doug, when you wrote, "People with dual citizenship can switch states without moving. So the USA is not a state?" you misunderstood the monopoly condition. A person with dual citizenship may switch from one geographic monopoly to another, but his landed property stays under the same jurisdiction. This is not the same as the person's property changing from one jurisdiction to another. If I could switch to a different "government" with my land switching juridiction from the old government to the new one, then is there no geographic monopoly.

Darrel wrote:Judged by the normative measurements, standard of living, health/disease, infant mortality, literacy, longevity etc., Somolia is a hell on earth...
I agree, and have never disagreed on this. By first world standards, Somalia sucks. So why do you keep repeating this irrelevant point?

Darrel, the CIA stats are pretty much up to date - it was your photos that were from 1992, immediately after the dictatorship.

I concede that the CIA stats make Somalia look bad compared to its neighbors (except perhaps for Ethiopia.) I dispute the accuracy of the economic data, however, for reasons I've already pointed out - statelessness and prevalence of nomadic tribes. The CIA, UN, and such are simply unable to measure economic productivity in a stateless society. It's like trying to guess the value of pot grown in Arkansas.



Tamara, to put things in perspective, here are some headlines from a quick googling of "ethiopia news deaths."
The Ethiopian capital is calm on the first day of a week-long opposition strike following the deaths of some 46 people in demonstrations last week.

Wednesday's violence in Ethiopia in which 22 people protesting about election results were killed, has been condemned by European Union observers.

Ethiopian PM Meles Zenawi express regrets over the death of at least 46 people in anti-government protests.

After 70,000 deaths, Eritrea and Ethiopia prepare for war again.
In this light, 32 deaths in the biggest incident of the last few years is not a big deal. Here's another comparison for you: "Conflict-related deaths since the outbreak of major hostilities [in Western Sudan] in February 2003---from all causes---now exceed 370,000. This total represents an increase of more than 10,000 [since June 30, 2005]."ref

The Truth? You Can't Handle the Truth!

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:26 pm
by Doug
Hogeye wrote:Doug asked for evidence about whether members of a Celtic tuath could switch. I've already given it, but he apparently missed it. Here it is again:
For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has written: "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice…. There was no trace of State-administered justice."
DOUG
I saw your mere assertions. They had no state? They had local kings. How is that not a state or anything like it? A kingdom is a state. No police? They had the king's goons. No public enforcement of justice? They had a rigid code of law enforcement within the kingdom, and your status in society determined which laws applied to you.

That is a state, like it or not.

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:17 pm
by Dardedar
Darrel wrote:Judged by the normative measurements, standard of living, health/disease, infant mortality, literacy, longevity etc., Somolia is a hell on earth...
HOGEYE
I agree, and have never disagreed on this.
DAR
You don't think it is disagreeing with my comment to make the claim:

"Here's what's really happining:" (in Somalia)

And then posting the article:

"Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It"

This isn't inconsistent with my comment:

"Judged by the normative measurements, standard of living, health/disease, infant mortality, literacy, longevity etc., Somolia is a hell on earth..." ?
By first world standards, Somalia sucks. So why do you keep repeating this irrelevant point?
DAR
But you say what is really happening in Somalia is that people are living stateless and loving it. And the fact that they are not, is very much the point.

I found a more up to date value on their currency. It's now 14,200 to $1US. Hardly consistent with the idea that their "economic productivity" is improving. And I just found this article on how the anarchy is going for them. Go to the link for the pics:

***
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
Life in Somalia is 'poor, nasty, brutish and short'
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."

Facts and figures about life in Somalia

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 ($42,000 of their dollars) 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
This large pile of notes is worth about $210 (pic)
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
Somalia's passports are a DIY affair
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

This is the society that you are trying to sell as a good idea Hogeye?

And this:

"Anarchy rules Somalia
03/10/2003 08:44 - (SA)

Mogadishu, Somalia - Ali Shera and Musa Hussein point to the wreckage of an American Black Hawk helicopter tangled in a large prickly pear cactus, the only remaining evidence of a battle on this dusty side-street a decade ago that left 18 US soldiers dead.

On October 3, 1993, Shera was a lieutenant in Mohamed Farah Aidid's militia, and Hussein was a streetfighter toting a Kalashnikov assault rifle. They said they rejoiced when they won the 19-hour battle against the world's only superpower.

"You can imagine Somalia, a small nation, we beat the most powerful country in the world," Shera, now 41, said. "For us, we were very happy we beat the Americans.'

In the years since then, though, they have come to hate the militias that still prowl Mogadishu's streets and the anarchy that prevents Somalia from rising above being the prototypical failed state. Shera and Hussein said they have seen too much death and destruction, especially in clan fighting.

We hate to carry guns

"Now we are tired, we've fought each other, and we can't defeat each other," said Hussein, 34, who along with Shera is now unemployed. "We hate to carry guns anymore.'

The rest

What a mess.

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:28 pm
by Barbara Fitzpatrick
The "strongman" dictatorship is the next step after anarchy if the territory remains together - Somalia is a country in name only - it is actually a bunch of war lord (strongman dictator) militia-defined territories within the boundaries of the failed state of Somalia. Some war lords being more benevalent than others, some areas are doing better than others.

Individual Celts could switch tuaths, like we can switch states (and the state government) we live in (under). They had no private ownership of land. The territory stayed with the tuath.