NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious to hear what capitalists (be they mild, left-wing capitalists, or raving 'right-wing anarchists') think of the situation that has developed in Somalia over the past 14 years.

As you probably know, Somalia is the only country in the world without a government; it hasn't had one since Siad Barre's collapsed in 1991. Technically, there is a 'transitional government', but it's based in Nairobi (Kenya) and is (understandably) afraid to go back to Mogadishu.

And so, over the past decade and a half, Somalia has become the world's only example of a pure capitalist society. Pure communism has never been tried on a large scale, but we have got an example of pure capitalism, and I'm mildly surprised it's never been discussed here before.

Because there's no government in Somalia, there are no taxes, no public sector, no military, no public healthcare, no public education system, no police - and no law. In practice, competing warlords control various areas - except Somaliland in the north-west, which has seceded and formed a stable, democratic nation which the rest of the world refuses to recognise. The warlords neither levy taxes (except road taxes and various forms of 'protection money') nor provide public services, and essentially allow the market to take its course.

I'm sure many capitalists would whoop for joy at the idea of no taxes and no public healthcare, but how do you feel at the absence of a military and police?

Here are a few aspects of life in Somalia, taken mainly from BBC reports.

Because there are no taxes, the private sector is able to offer very low prices for various goods and services. Internet cafes are numerous and very cheap. Phones, both landline and mobile, are both much cheaper and much more easily obtained than in most nearby countries. Call rates are also very cheap. Despite the chaos in the country, the fighting warlords don't interfere or disrupt these services.

Also because there are no taxes, there's no healthcare system. There are very few hospitals, and what few there are are underequipped and privately run, having to charge for admittance.

Most universities have closed down, and few parents can afford to send their children to school: in the absence of a government to levy taxes, there's no free education even on a primary level, so parents have to pay private institutions to send their children to primary school.

There's no law and no police, making Somalia one of the most dangerous countries in the world to live in. Those rich enough to employ bodyguards and live in relatively safe areas are more or less all right, but parts of the country are plagued by constant violence. Hotels in Mogadishu offer bodyguards to guests. Guns are extremely widespread. Gunmen in the service of warlords control the roads, mostly those leading in and out of towns and cities, and charge people (at gunpoint) for the right to use them. Streets within cities have no functional traffic lights, making driving dangerous and chaotic; a favoured way to get anywhere is to fire gunshots in the air to force other cars to make way for you.

The absence of a military also has notable consequences. There have been reports of Ethiopians crossing the border and raiding Somali villages. Somalia's territorial waters are notorious for being the most unsafe in the world, since there's no such thing as a Somali Navy to patrol them. Merchant ships crossing Somali waters to travel from the Arab world to Africa's eastern coast (or vice-versa) are frequently attacked by pirates, as are those who call in to Somali trading ports.

Finally, the lack of a government means Somalis abroad have no one to speak for them. All Somali embassies abroad have been closed since 1991 (those in Paris and Brussels were once taken over by homeless immigrants, on the basis that the buildings belonged neither to France/Belgium nor to the non-existant Somali State, and hence belonged to no-one); a few years ago, there was outrage when several Somalis were beheaded in Saudi Arabia for stealing a car, and there was obviously no Somali government to intercede on their behalf.

Comments? What do capitalists think about pure capitalism put into practise?

Not capitalism, more like feudalism, with some anarchy.

Meanwhile, Somaliland is doing OK.
http://www.somalilandgov.com/

At least Democracy and civilization are triumphing somewhere in the region.

Not capitalism, more like feudalism, with some anarchy.

Well, I suppose you could say that "pure capitalism" is more the absence of government regulation of the market than the absence of a government altogether. But Somalia is an anarchy in the "right-wing" sense. And it's a completely unregulated free market.

Meanwhile, Somaliland is doing OK.
http://www.somalilandgov.com/

At least Democracy and civilization are triumphing somewhere in the region.


Article 5: Religion



1. Islam is the religion of the nation, and the promotion of any religion in the territory of Somaliland, other than Islam, is prohibited.

2. The laws of the nation shall be grounded on, and shall not be valid if they are contrary to Islamic Sharia.

3. The state shall promote religious tenets (religious affairs), and shall fulfil Sharia principles and discourage immoral acts and reprehensible behaviour.

4. The calendar shall be the Islamic Calendar based on the hijra[2] and the Gregorian Calendar.



Democracy, perhaps. Civilisation, nyet.

A predominantly islamic country, no less.
Islam does not have to be antithitical to Democracy. It only is if you let the Mullahs be in charge.

A predominantly islamic country, no less.
Yeah, black African too. Just goes to show that we're all equal and anyone can succeed if they commit themselves to civilization and democracy.

I think this just goes to demonstrate the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism.

Capitalism needs government if for nothing else but to protect property rights and safeguard the rule of law. You can't have a truly free market under the duress of 'criminal' activity.

Democracy, perhaps. Civilisation, nyet.
Compared to where they were before? They're getting there.

Not capitalism, more like feudalism, with some anarchy.

Feudalism being a highly hierarchical scheme of social, political, and economic control of the population at large by a small elite group mixed with... anarchy?

I think this just goes to demonstrate the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism.

Capitalism needs government if for nothing else but to protect property rights and safeguard the rule of law. You can't have a truly free market under the duress of 'criminal' activity.
yeah i dont think that anarchy, which emphasizes cooperation is compatible with capitalism which emphasizes greed.

Compared to where they were before? They're getting there.

They are getting there, but the promotion of a state religion prevents them from entering the relm of the civilized, IMHO.

EDIT: Reading through their Constitution, they make dozens of references to Islam.

They are getting there, but the promotion of a state religion prevents them from entering the relm of the civilized, IMHO.
Democracy will eventually let them change their laws to become more secular.

They are getting there, but the promotion of a state religion prevents them from entering the relm of the civilized, IMHO.

Meh, the UK has one.

Yeah, black African too. Just goes to show that we're all equal and anyone can succeed if they commit themselves to civilization and democracy.

You do know that Somaliland is not the only democracy in SubSaharan Africa? South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Malawi, Mali, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal...

This is a great example of why
A] Liberal Capitalism is a load of dogs breakfast that can only be afforded by white middle class boys and girls (like Ayn Rand *shudder*)
B] Anarchists are a bunch of wankers

Meh, the UK has one.

Just a little different...:D

Islam does not have to be antithitical to Democracy. It only is if you let the Mullahs be in charge.

True, Turkey's government is fiercely secular.

B] Anarchists are a bunch of wankers

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

Read through that and then tell me that Somalia fits it.

You do know that Somaliland is not the only democracy in SubSaharan Africa? South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Malawi, Mali, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal...
It's not the only democracy in the Muslim world either. So what?

You do know that Somaliland is not the only democracy in SubSaharan Africa? South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Malawi, Mali, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal...

Scratch most of those off your list: Of those who listed, only Botswana and Ghana truly qualify.

Meh, the UK has one.
Cake or Death!

Cake or Death!

*gives cake.....cake of soap*

Yay, saved!

I'm sure many capitalists would whoop for joy at the idea of no taxes and no public healthcare, but how do you feel at the absence of a military and police?


Absence of military?


In practice, competing warlords control various areas - except Somaliland in the north-west, which has seceded and formed a stable, democratic nation which the rest of the world refuses to recognise. The warlords neither levy taxes (except road taxes and various forms of 'protection money') nor provide public services, and essentially allow the market to take its course.

So how exactly are there WARLORDS?

It would seem to me that a WARLORD has at least *something* to do with the military.... or am I wrong?

Sounds like tribalism to me.

Look, the capitalist United States went there for a bit to try to restore order, and the locals made it very, very, very clear that they didn't want help with their government, or lack thereof. In fact, they didn't want any help at all.

So we left.

While anarchists or capitalists or everyone else may sit and debate the merits or faults of Somalia, it is my opinion that they have the lifestyle that they struggled for - and deserve.

It would seem to me that a WARLORD has at least *something* to do with the military.... or am I wrong?

You're wrong (:p), in the sense that a military is supposed to be a national body, run by a government. The "warlords" in Somalia (I'm just giving you the term commonly used to refer to them) rely on private or mercenary militias. That's not a military.

Cake or Death!


Um...I'll take death. No, wait! I meant cake!

Sounds like tribalism to me.

Look, the capitalist United States went there for a bit to try to restore order, and the locals made it very, very, very clear that they didn't want help with their government, or lack thereof. In fact, they didn't want any help at all.

So we left.

While anarchists or capitalists or everyone else may sit and debate the merits or faults of Somalia, it is my opinion that they have the lifestyle that they struggled for - and deserve.

Not so much "the locals" as the local warlords / gang leaders (or whatever you want to call them) in Mogadishu. The "locals" never asked for them or wanted them, and certainly never "struggled" to obtain and retain them.

Absence of military?



So how exactly are there WARLORDS?

It would seem to me that a WARLORD has at least *something* to do with the military.... or am I wrong?
Warlords have their own private armies. Not like government run armies that answer to the government.

Not so much "the locals" as the local warlords / gang leaders (or whatever you want to call them) in Mogadishu. The "locals" never asked for them or wanted them, and certainly never "struggled" to obtain and retain them.

When you consider that thousands of men, women, and children were involved in the attack on the Rangers in Mogadishu, I find that difficult to believe.

The whole city acted in a coordinated manner.

Um...I'll take death. No, wait! I meant cake!

Too late.

*impales with spear and puts your head on a stake*

*takes your wallet and eats the cake*

Yay somalia!

No, the whole city got caught up in a mob frenzy. And they were not necessarily acting in support of any warlord or the warlords in general, but rather against an outside presence.

Too late.

*impales with spear and puts your head on a stake*

*takes your wallet and eats the cake*

Yay somalia!


Hey...you can't do that. You haven't got a flag.

You're wrong (:p), in the sense that a military is supposed to be a national body, run by a government. The "warlords" in Somalia (I'm just giving you the term commonly used to refer to them) rely on private or mercenary militias. That's not a military.

Oh what? So they didn't have militaries in the medieval ages? I mean they rarely had "national bodies" and the armed forces were rarely run by a "government" in the sense that we know it.

Here's what dictionary.com says.

. pl. military, also mil·i·tar·ies

1. Armed forces: a country ruled by the military.
2. Members, especially officers, of an armed force.


I think I'll call it a military.

And it's hardly pure capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism, at best, and you're not going to find me arguing in favor of it. ;)

Too late.

*impales with spear and puts your head on a stake*

*takes your wallet and eats the cake*

Yay somalia!

*impales Kanabia, cooks and eats Kanabia, then cooks and eats the wallet*

No, the whole city got caught up in a mob frenzy. And they were not necessarily acting in support of any warlord or the warlords in general, but rather against an outside presence.

The point is, they didn't want any government imposed on them, whether they belonged to a warlord's organization or not. In fact, Western democracy is not on their menu of things they want.

They seem to enjoy tribal society - and they have it.

Warlords have their own private armies. Not like government run armies that answer to the government.

Yes. They answer to a warlord. A warlord, in this case, being the government. Who runs the military.

I think some of you are defining things a little too narrowly. Last I heard a government does not need to be a democratically elected national legislature. Nor does a military need to be a tax-funded bureacratic and uniformed organization. These guys are military, working for their particular government, doing what governments always seem to do - control people by force. You say there is no law? I say that is exactly what law is!

I think it's great.

*impales Kanabia, cooks and eats Kanabia, then cooks and eats the wallet*

No, no, no, that's how corporate capitalism works. Somalian anarchy is different. ;)

And it's hardly pure capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism, at best, How does anarcho-capitalism differ from pure capitalism?

Somalia is truly an excellent demonstration of what is wrong with "anarcho"-capitalism and should be a wake up call to those calling for deregulated capitalism.

No, no, no, that's how corporate capitalism works. Somalian anarchy is different. ;)

*eats the Somalian anarchists, then re-eats Kanabia*

Somalia is truly an excellent demonstration of what is wrong with "anarcho"-capitalism and should be a wake up call to those calling for deregulated capitalism.

No, but it does demonstrate the need for at least some government (albeit extremely small and limited), to maintain law and order.

*eats the Somalian anarchists, then re-eats Kanabia*

*kicks and screams from inside your stomach*

*kicks and screams from inside your stomach*

*OUCH!*

*throws up Kanabia*

When you consider that thousands of men, women, and children were involved in the attack on the Rangers in Mogadishu, I find that difficult to believe.

The whole city acted in a coordinated manner.

I think the "coordination" was mainly that of the militias. Quite a lot of people in Mogadishu are employed as gunmen for warlords. As for the rest, from what I know it was more unthinking mob reaction than anything "coordinated".


I think I'll call it a military.


If you want. :p But it isn't, really. Private militias aren't normally considered military. There's no Somali army - hence the unguarded borders and national waters.


And it's hardly pure capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism, at best, and you're not going to find me arguing in favor of it. :)

Good. :)

*OUCH!*

*throws up Kanabia*

Yay! That must be the workers revolution. *lumbers towards you with a knife*

Yay! That must be the workers revolution. *lumbers towards you with a knife*

*Runs away, screaming like a little girl*

I think it's great.

Would you care to elaborate?

And would you care to move there?

*hands you a little Somali flag (http://www.appliedlanguage.com/flags_of_the_world/small_flag_of_somalia.gif)*

Yay! That must be the workers regurgitation. *lumbers towards you with a knife*

Fixed. :p

*Runs away, screaming like a little girl*

Freedom! Freedom!

Who wants to share this cake Lewrockwellia left behind?

Fixed. :p

lol :p

Freedom! Freedom!

Who wants to share this cake Lewrockwellia left behind?

*Runs back, grabs the cake, runs away again*

*Runs back, grabs the cake, runs away again*

Meh. I've got all of the flour and sweet stuff, so i'll bake my own.

Meh. I've got all of the flour and sweet stuff, so i'll bake my own.

*steals the flour and sweet stuff, too, runs away again*

*steals the flour and sweet stuff, too, runs away again*

*has more anyway* You know, if you want some, all you have to do is ask. :mad:

*has more anyway* You know, if you want some, all you have to do is ask. :mad:

*gives up, sighs, realizes it's futile, gives everything back to Kanabia, waves white flag, shoots self, dies*

*gives up, sighs, realizes it's futile, gives everything back to Kanabia, waves white flag, shoots self, dies*

And so the bourgeoisie self-imploded....

;)

Somalia is truly an excellent demonstration of what is wrong with "anarcho"-capitalism and should be a wake up call to those calling for deregulated capitalism.
No, because this has nothing to do with "deregulated capitalism." In fact, Somalia is farther from capitalism then the USSR were from Communism.
Deregulated Capitlalism is based on having a strict rule of law, and 100% voluntary engagement of all parties in any business deal. Somalia is an example of government's growing to fill the vacuum of power left when the original power vacates.

Deregulated Capitlalism is based on having a strict rule of law, and 100% voluntary engagement of all parties in any business deal. Somalia is an example of government's growing to fill the vacuum of power left when the original power vacates.There is a strict rule of law - whichever laws the particular warlords set.
How does one have 100% voluntary engagement in any business deal? I mean, there could always be a government, but governments levy taxes, and taxes interfere with the free market - thus there is no deregulated capitalism.

There is a strict rule of law - whichever laws the particular warlords set.
Yes, but a law that (apparently) allows for the area to become one of the "most dangerous countries in the world to live in" due to it being "plagued by constant violence." Now, with rare exception, people only get violent when forcing others to do something. Forcing someone to do something violates capitalistc principles, capitalists aren't anarchists.
It doesn't matter who (government agent, soldier, thug) is on the other side of the gun, what matters is that the gun is being used to coerce me.
How does one have 100% voluntary engagement in any business deal?
By knowing what the deal entails and not having anyone blackmailing or threatening you into it.
I mean, there could always be a government, but governments levy taxes, and taxes interfere with the free market - thus there is no deregulated capitalism.
But if the levying of taxes regulates capitalism, then doesn't levying a road tax regulate the system? Then doesn't that make Somalia Regulated? Then doesn't that invalidate your entire point?

somalia is totally wicked gay and not in the cool san francisco way either

it's L.A. all the way


man I got a bloody nose in chemistry lecture :(


oh

I forgot to put anything in here

here goes: somalia sans somaliland might have pure capitalism, but that really doesn't give us much useful information for the first world because we (most of the world) aren't likely to have any similar situation for a very long time

Yes, but a law that (apparently) allows for the area to become one of the "most dangerous countries in the world to live in" due to it being "plagued by constant violence." Now, with rare exception, people only get violent when forcing others to do something. Forcing someone to do something violates capitalistc principles, capitalists aren't anarchists.It doesn't matter who (government agent, soldier, thug) is on the other side of the gun, what matters is that the gun is being used to coerce me.Forcing someone to do something violates anarchist principles, as well.

But if the levying of taxes regulates capitalism, then doesn't levying a road tax regulate the system? Then doesn't that make Somalia Regulated? Then doesn't that invalidate your entire point?Not if the tax is based upon use, such as a "toll." That type of tax does not interfere with the workings of the free market.

People should remember that there are different meanings, different modifications of anarchism.

Several warlords and tribal leaders ruling their small pieces of the common land and oppressing the local people is shitty system, of course. It is somewhat chaotic situation, and therefore can be perhaps described as anarchism.

However, anarchosyndicalism is something that could actually work out, to be fair and rightful. And most of all, democratic.

One cannot blame all anarchists and anarcho-movemements because of what has happened in this particular country.

[QUOTE=Ariddia]Would you care to elaborate?

And would you care to move there?
QUOTE]

Firstly, most of the people who are constantly shooting there mouths of about freedom are the same people spotting of about law and order. I believe these two things to be incompatible. If you really want freedom the strong must be allowed the freedom to take their place holding the whips over thee weak. To me freedom is having the chance to advance in life as far as your abilities will take you. If they don't take you far enough, that's your failure and not my concern. Life my not be very good for the people of Somalia, but they have the chance to make it better for themselves without relying on the government. Man has only the rights that he can defend. Rights given to you mean nothing because they aren't really yours.

I wouldn't move there because, being a white American, I wouldn’t be accepted. I would have liked to have been born there, though. The reason is simple. In a place like that any punk kid with his wits about him and even a hint of charisma can become one these "warlords".

I hope this spreads across the world like the plague. That isn't likely, but one can dream.

Oops. Fucked up my quote. Oh well.

Deregulated Capitlalism is based on having a strict rule of law, and 100% voluntary engagement of all parties in any business deal.

How do you reconcile these two? If someone wants to break the law, obviously they're not 100% voluntarily engaged in the system of restrictions that the society imposes on its members.

How do you reconcile these two? If someone wants to break the law, obviously they're not 100% voluntarily engaged in the system of restrictions that the society imposes on its members.
But to break the law, you have to have forced someone else into a deal they didn't want (using deregulate capitalism).
In essence: I steal a fiver from your desk.
An exchange has just occured, I entered into it voluntarily and got 5 bucks. You didn't voluntarily enter into it and are out 5 bucks.
The deal wasn't voluntary, so I have broken the law and get curb stomped by law enforcement.

I think Italy should just recolonize Italian somaliland [The part that's having trouble].

I'm curious to hear what capitalists (be they mild, left-wing capitalists, or raving 'right-wing anarchists') think of the situation that has developed in Somalia over the past 14 years.

As you probably know, Somalia is the only country in the world without a government; it hasn't had one since Siad Barre's collapsed in 1991. Technically, there is a 'transitional government', but it's based in Nairobi (Kenya) and is (understandably) afraid to go back to Mogadishu.

And so, over the past decade and a half, Somalia has become the world's only example of a pure capitalist society.
No, it's an example of a combination of chaos over most of the area, with some anarcho-capitalist enclaves.


Pure communism has never been tried on a large scale,
Except for all of the communist nations that have ever existed, you mean.

So, when there *is* an example of "pure capitalism", please get back to me.

I don't understand why people who believe in democratic free markets let communists and socialists define us.

Somalia is no more capitalist (even as defined by Marx) than the man in the moon.

The whole concept is absurd and is nothing more than baiting.

I don't understand why people who believe in democratic free markets let communists and socialists define us.

Somalia is no more capitalist (even as defined by Marx) than the man in the moon.

The whole concept is absurd and is nothing more than baiting.

Quoted for truth!

Capitalism doesn't work without a civillization in place. With no government, you have no economic model; you have the chaos of the hunter gatherer state.

Capitalism doesn't work without a civillization in place. With no government, you have no economic model; you have the chaos of the hunter gatherer state.

And what's wrong with that?

Looks like pure capitalism to me. A corporation would be free to do whatever it wanted. Protection, health care, etc. are all businesses.

Crappy

Capitalism doesn't work without a civillization in place. With no government, you have no economic model; you have the chaos of the hunter gatherer state.
Utter nonsense. There's nothing at all that requires an economy to have a government.

Looks like pure capitalism to me. A corporation would be free to do whatever it wanted. Protection, health care, etc. are all businesses.

Crappy
If only you could demonstrate that, rather than just blatantly asserting.

I've heard several capitalists argue for the abolition of government funded police forces and the establishment of corporations to handle that sort of thing in their place.

In Somalia right now, if you want protection, you pay bodyguards. If you can't afford it? Tough luck.

There is no real government, hence, no regulation whatsoever, no restrictions on a free market and free trade, none of those pesky environmental laws, etc., etc.
No labor laws, either, of course.

How is it not pure Capitalism? In what way is the government restricting free enterprise?

I think it's a misunderstanding to have a one-line, or even a two-line, political system. The way I see it, there are three different parts of a political philosophy; social, government, and economic. From what I know, having a strong fundamentalist and radical Islamic culture, Somalia would be very authoritarian considering social rights. Government would probably be closest to the more libertarian side of things, anarchic obviously, since people are pretty much free to do whatever they want as long as they're strong enough to do it- able to make their own political states, treat each other how they think is best, etc. Capitalist... meh. I wouldn't say they're as much libertarian in economics as much as they simply don't care. I suppose in the sense that they can do what they want they could be capitalist, but I'd have to say this is more because of a run-over from the complete lack of real government than by any pro-free market ideology.

I've heard several capitalists argue for the abolition of government funded police forces and the establishment of corporations to handle that sort of thing in their place.

In Somalia right now, if you want protection, you pay bodyguards. If you can't afford it? Tough luck.
Or you band with others.


There is no real government, hence, no regulation whatsoever, no restrictions on a free market and free trade, none of those pesky environmental laws, etc., etc.
No labor laws, either, of course.
Not much of a market, either. It's mostly collapsed into chaos.


How is it not pure Capitalism? In what way is the government restricting free enterprise?
There's a difference between CHAOS and CAPITALISM. Please learn it.

Using Somali as an example of capitalism is like using a turkey as an example of a chicken. It makes no sense!

And I'll bet you just got confused with my post. Just move along...

Or you band with others.



Not much of a market, either. It's mostly collapsed into chaos.



There's a difference between CHAOS and CAPITALISM. Please learn it.

They seem pretty similar to me.

Somalia is an example of why pure Capitalism cannot work. As much as Capitalists bemoan big government, the system cannot remain functional without it.

Also, instead of insulting me, you could have just said what the difference between chaos and capitalism is.

*snip*

Pure capitalism requires complete respect of property rights, this doesn't apply.

They seem pretty similar to me.
Then you clearly don't know the difference between chaos and capitalism. You should get a dictionary.


Somalia is an example of why pure Capitalism cannot work.
Unsupported assertion.


As much as Capitalists bemoan big government, the system cannot remain functional without it.
Sure it can.


Also, instead of insulting me, you could have just said what the difference between chaos and capitalism is.
I thought you were intelligent enough to get a dictionary. My mistake for overestimating your intellectual prowess.

Sure it can.

I thought you were intelligent enough to get a dictionary. My mistake for overestimating your intellectual prowess.

No, I'm just lazy, and my mistake for thinking you'd actually care to answer the question instead of acting like an asshole.

Pure capitalism requires complete respect of property rights, this doesn't apply.

Thank you.

Capitalism doesn't work without a civillization in place. With no government, you have no economic model; you have the chaos of the hunter gatherer state.
There is nothing inherently chaotic in a hunter-gatherer economic system.

Thank you.

For what?

For what?

For pointing out the difference between pure Capitalism and chaos instead of insulting me, like BAAWA

Anyway, that's all. Later

For pointing out the difference between pure Capitalism and chaos instead of insulting me, like BAAWA

Anyway, that's all. Later

Oh, I wasn't addressing it to you, but I am glad someone actually got something from it. That is rare here.

Ignore my name and listen.

State how this isn't capitalism. Corporations handle the protection property rights, instead of government. That is what these warlords are. Privatised government. Businesses handle everything that a government would.

Ignore my name and listen.

State how this isn't capitalism. Corporations handle the protection property rights, instead of government. That is what these warlords are. Privatised government. Businesses handle everything that a government would.

It isn't capitalism because most capitalists advocate a system with limited government.

But, you may ask, hasn't Somalia been without a government for some years now?

Not quite. They have been without an official government, but they obviously still have some forms of unofficial government. In order to understand this, you have to know what a government is. Most people think of government as that mob of politicians that convenes at the capital building now and again and rains edicts down upon us commoners, but I would advocate a broader definition of government based on its defining characteristic.

The defining characteristic of government is its ability to force people to do something they wouldn't otherwise do. Individuals, charities, churches, businesses and other non-government bodies cannot do this (the best they can do is pay you to do something or talk you into doing something, but that is very different from forcing you to do something); only government can use force. Now if we extend the definition of government to include anyone who forces you to do something against your will, we get a definition that includes the aforementioned politicians, as well as theives, murderers, rapists, and anyone else who exerts force on other people. It also includes the government of a foreign country, which might try to invade your country. This is the sort of government capitalists mean when they talk about minimizing government.

That is why Somalia is not a good example of capitalism: there is still to much government. What a capitalist would like to do is to set up an official government and use it to limit the power of any unofficial government in the region without letting it grow out of control. That is why most capitalists advocate a police force (to deal with the petty thug type of government and the organized crime type of government) and a military (to keep foreign official governments from becoming governments within the region). Beyond those two departments, most capitalists would like to see as many government institutions as possible eliminated. Some are willing to concede that the official government ought to provide a few common goods like roads, but most are of the opinion the the primary purpose of official government is to thwart the efforts of unofficial government.

In order to understand this, you have to know what a government is. Most people think of government as that mob of politicians that convenes at the capital building now and again and rains edicts down upon us commoners, but I would advocate a broader definition of government based on its defining characteristic.

The defining characteristic of government is its ability to force people to do something they wouldn't otherwise do. Individuals, charities, churches, businesses and other non-government bodies cannot do this (the best they can do is pay you to do something or talk you into doing something, but that is very different from forcing you to do something); only government can use force. Now if we extend the definition of government to include anyone who forces you to do something against your will, we get a definition that includes the aforementioned politicians, as well as theives, murderers, rapists, and anyone else who exerts force on other people. It also includes the government of a foreign country, which might try to invade your country. This is the sort of government capitalists mean when they talk about minimizing government.


Your definition is unlikely ever to gain support and come into conventional usage. I dont know anyone other than yourself who considers that the act of rape renders the actor a governmental force, nor anyone other than yourself who believes the meaning of the word government ought to be expanded so that such a definition (of the actor perpetrating rape) would be correct.

More to the point whether or not what you are advocating in terms of what ought to be referrent of the word government is not the current convention. So whether or not it ever will come to pass, it is irrelevent in distinguishing a lack of government from the presence of government at this point in time.

Your definition is unlikely ever to gain support and come into conventional usage. I dont know anyone other than yourself who considers that the act of rape renders the actor a governmental force.

More to the point whether or not what you are advocating in terms of what ought to be referrent of the word government is not the current convention. So whether or not it ever will come to pass, it is irrelevent in distinguishing a lack of government from the presence of government at this point in time.

Yeah, I know that my definition of government is unconventional, but there is no other convenient word for "anyone who uses force to make others act against their will". The point of my post wasn't that everyone ought to start using the word government in a new way, but that if you think of government as anyone who exerts force on others you can better understand the thinking of many capitalists and libertarians.

I am not debating anything, because I havn't read the thread, and I do not have time. I'll just post a few remarks.

- The Somalians have become wealthier after the civil war. Much faster than other African countries with a similar starting level. This pretty much without aid, but with states causeing trouble there.

- The Somali society is islamic and clanbased. Everyone respects their clan authorities and not those of other clans, and are loyal to their clan and also many don't trust people not from their clan. This means that anarchocapitalism in Somalia would be very different from anarchocapitalism in a western society.

- The clans are doing a lot of the order-keeping and conflict solving that is necessary in society. They also maintain local infrastructure in places were one clan dominate

- There are private firms building roads and ports and such stuff. Not on a large scale though. Both because Somalia is (still) a poor society, and because of the continuing fighting.
Edit: Put a questionmark on this one. I was going to post a link to the homepage of a freeport, but it doesn't work anymore. I havn't been looking at Somalia the latest few years, so I don't have much modern sources. They had a network for transferring money too, but that doesn't work either. Al Barakat ring a bell?

- The fighting between the warlords has decreased and just about stopped several times. But every time somebody outside has thought that things are getting normal, so they should put a government in place (so that somebody can collect taxes and pay Barres debts) and have tried to speed that up by helping various warlords. Then the warlords have started to fight over who should have more influence in the government and everything has started over.

- For this reason most of the fighting is in and around Mogadishu, in Puntland and Somaliland it is more peaceful (though more peaceful /= peaceful, and even the end of large scale fighting would not mean that you'd never see a shot fired in anger).

- The Somaliland government has very little typical government activities (taxation, police, military, welfare etc). Not really back to statism yet.

- You might find some of these sites interesting: http://www.somalianarchy.com/ http://explorersfoundation.org/glyphery/139.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/awdal/messages/1?viscount=100

Yeah, I know that my definition of government is unconventional, but there is no other convenient word for "anyone who uses force to make others act against their will". The point of my post wasn't that everyone ought to start using the word government in a new way, but that if you think of government as anyone who exerts force on others you can better understand the thinking of many capitalists and libertarians.
How about saying 'minimise coercion' instead?

Yeah, I know that my definition of government is unconventional, but there is no other convenient word for "anyone who uses force to make others act against their will". The point of my post wasn't that everyone ought to start using the word government in a new way, but that if you think of government as anyone who exerts force on others you can better understand the thinking of many capitalists and libertarians.
The lack of a convinient word is better solved by inventing a new word than it is by taking an already useful word, making it mean something else, and then having no word for what that already useful word had been used for. Why there actually needs to be a word is unclear since the referrent can be referred without having one particular word that means it and exactly it only.

In order to consider government to mean what you suggest we ought to consider it to mean (in order to better understand particular view-points), the word would have to be used in a different way ie it's meaning would have to change.

The lack of a convinient word is better solved by inventing a new word than it is by taking an already useful word, making it mean something else, and then having no word for what that already useful word had been used for. Why there actually needs to be a word is unclear since the referrent can be referred without having one particular word that means it and exactly it only.

In order to consider government to mean what you suggest we ought to consider it to mean (in order to better understand particular view-points), the word would have to be used in a different way ie it's meaning would have to change.
The definition of government I usually use is 'the dominating user of coercion in the area'. With this definition I nearly always mean the same group of people as others, but it includes spartiala's definition in cases were you would say that there is no government.

The definition of government I usually use is 'the dominating user of coercion in the area'. With this definition I nearly always mean the same group of people as others, but it includes spartiala's definition in cases were you would say that there is no government.
This would exclude as being 'governmental' anything not involving coercion. I'm not convinced that most people require that something include coercion for it to be considered a form of governence.

This would exclude as being 'governmental' anything not involving coercion. I'm not convinced that most people require that something include coercion for it to be considered a form of governence.

Everything that a government does is the result of some form of coercion because everything the government does is funded by taxes and taxes are collected coercively.

Everything that a government does is the result of some form of coercion because everything the government does is funded by taxes and taxes are collected coercively.
Not according to your definition...I know of many rapes that have been found to occur without having been funded by taxes.

I would suggest that since government is the subject of discussion (ie what is government) it is circular to state that government is only that thing which exists through coercion of taxes.

I would also suggest that if something can be said to govern then it is a form of government and that there are states of governence that can be attained without coercion.

Not according to your definition...I know of many rapes that have been found to occur without having been funded by taxes.

I would suggest that since government is the subject of discussion (ie what is government) it is circular to state that government is only that thing which exists through coercion of taxes.

I would also suggest that if something can be said to govern then it is a form of government and that there are states of governess that can be attained without coercion.

Ah, you caught me. I should have said "everything that an official government does . . ."

I guess that pretty well proves that my definition of government is too difficult to use on a regular basis. You win.

You win.
But I never win anything!:p Surely there is some catch...send no money now type thing...;)

It just so happens I am in the middle of researching an essay in which the governence of land is relevent and so am currently engaged in thinking through various forms of land governence (and the structures that govern such governence) and determining. Doing so necessarily involves some consideration on the role of coercion and the meaning of governence. I can tell you outright that determining what is governence (and therefore what is government) in a way that can be reduced to an outright generalised description is apparently not exactly simple.

It's one of those words whose definition appears to be somewhat intuitive in that people more or less know whether a description of actual happenings fits their notion of governence but find it difficult to give a description of governence that excludes things they would not intuit as governence whilst including all things that they would intuit as governence.

It's a lot like doing this :headbang: in that any obvious description fails to encompass all it should, or includes things that it ought not according to intuitive interpretations.

The defining characteristic of government is its ability to force people to do something they wouldn't otherwise do. Individuals, charities, churches, businesses and other non-government bodies cannot do this (the best they can do is pay you to do something or talk you into doing something, but that is very different from forcing you to do something)

Corporations can use force. A steel company can threaten a construction company. in a limited market, like Somalia, it is a death sentence. Forced out of necessity. The huge revenue loss in finding a new supplier is equivalent to fines in a government. You can defy both, but is it a good idea?

The Warlords are Protection Corporations. They do upkeep on roads, they get to charge a toll. They stop raiders and looters, they extract a fee. They defend your property, you p[ay them for services rendered. They fulfill government's role, but don't affect the market in any way, because they are part of the market.

Besides, even if we do accept your definition of government, they are certainly minimal. They keep out of the market, only charging those who use the governmental services. They don't extract taxes, they don't prop up monopolies, they privatise all but necesssary functions. They are a capitalist state if we define them as a government.

Competition even factors in. The good warlord keeps his customers happy. The bad one has discontent in his customers and is soon replaced by a new one.

Corporations can use force. A steel company can threaten a construction company. in a limited market, like Somalia, it is a death sentence. Forced out of necessity. The huge revenue loss in finding a new supplier is equivalent to fines in a government. You can defy both, but is it a good idea?
Haha Spartiala needs to be more specific. This type of "force" is not what he was talking about (should refer to at least). The worst the steel company can do if the construction company refuses to comply is to leave them alone. In that case the construction company is no worse off than if there was no steel company. If you instead disobey the government they do, as a last resort, use direct violence, sending representatives to drag you off to prison. That is the difference between governments and normal corporations.

The Warlords are Protection Corporations. They do upkeep on roads, they get to charge a toll. They stop raiders and looters, they extract a fee. They defend your property, you p[ay them for services rendered. They fulfill government's role, but don't affect the market in any way, because they are part of the market.

Besides, even if we do accept your definition of government, they are certainly minimal. They keep out of the market, only charging those who use the governmental services. They don't extract taxes, they don't prop up monopolies, they privatise all but necesssary functions. They are a capitalist state if we define them as a government.

Competition even factors in. The good warlord keeps his customers happy. The bad one has discontent in his customers and is soon replaced by a new one.

Non of the warlords dominate the whole of Somalia. So non of them is the government of Somalia. In places where one warlord dominates he might be the government, but as for the whole there is no dominating coercive agency, ie no government. This is also true for most parts of the country.

As for your arguments that the market will make the warlords be effective crime defense agencies, that sounds plausible, and given enough time it will probably become true. But the warlords are called warlords because they started out as warriors. They are good at killíng but bad at business and costumer relations. So currently they do disturb the market, and don't do a very good job of providing security. And outside forces who try to help them become a government instead help them stay ineffective.

But I never win anything!:p Surely there is some catch...send no money now type thing...;)

It just so happens I am in the middle of researching an essay in which the governence of land is relevent and so am currently engaged in thinking through various forms of land governence (and the structures that govern such governence) and determining. Doing so necessarily involves some consideration on the role of coercion and the meaning of governence. I can tell you outright that determining what is governence (and therefore what is government) in a way that can be reduced to an outright generalised description is apparently not exactly simple.

It's one of those words whose definition appears to be somewhat intuitive in that people more or less know whether a description of actual happenings fits their notion of governence but find it difficult to give a description of governence that excludes things they would not intuit as governence whilst including all things that they would intuit as governence.

It's a lot like doing this :headbang: in that any obvious description fails to encompass all it should, or includes things that it ought not according to intuitive interpretations.
You will probably need a definition that says 'under theses circumstances this, under those circumstances that ...' Or simply: 'If the governments call you government you're a government', with the first givernment being the first Summerian and/or chinese rulers. The latter is probably the best historical version, but it is boring in philosophy.

But in what situations does my definition fail?
'A government is the leaders of a state. A state is the dominating producer of coercion in a territory (where territory is any land region too big to be dominated by one man alone, and producer of a kind of action is an organisation that does it.)'

You will probably need a definition that says 'under theses circumstances this, under those circumstances that ...' Or simply: 'If the governments call you government you're a government', with the first givernment being the first Summerian and/or chinese rulers. The latter is probably the best historical version, but it is boring in philosophy.

But in what situations does my definition fail?
'A government is the leaders of a state. A state is the dominating producer of coercion in a territory (where territory is any land region too big to be dominated by one man alone, and producer of a kind of action is an organisation that does it.)'
It excludes describing anything other than leaders of a state from being described as a government, it excludes anything that does not produce coercion as being described as a government.

It excludes describing anything other than leaders of a state from being described as a government, it excludes anything that does not produce coercion as being described as a government.
Yes. The standard definition of air excludes anything that doesn't contain oxygen or nitrogen from being called air. What governments could there be that does not lead a state or use coercion in any sense?

Yes. The standard definition of air excludes anything that doesn't contain oxygen or nitrogen from being called air. What governments could there be that does not lead a state or use coercion in any sense?
Well I would suggest that any governing body is a government, and many things other than states have governing bodies, for instance a committee or club. Your explanation of state seems to exclude societies or communities that whose existence is based on something other exclusive human occupation of a particular territory (for instance a hunter-gatherer society who's range includes land occupied by non-members of the community/society).

Coercion is only relevent where and if there is resistence either percieved or actual. So in the case of a club or a group membership of which is voluntary the closest thing to coercion is to not include someone who refuses to be governed, I notice that you seem to have already excluded this as a form or coercion because it would leave people no worse off than if the thing excluding them (or leaving them alone) were not existent.

I think Italy should just recolonize Italian somaliland [The part that's having trouble].

For goodness' sake, get it right! Somaliland is the part that's not having trouble, comparatively speaking! It's established a functional, democratic, stable republic, by contrast with the rest of Somalia which is in chaos.

Not to mention that outright annexation of one country by another is, thankfully, a thing of the past.


Except for all of the communist nations that have ever existed, you mean.

So, when there *is* an example of "pure capitalism", please get back to me.


There has never been a communist society on a nationwide scale. Do some research. By contrast, in Somalia, you have an unimpeded free market with no government regulation. Yes, there's chaos, but the warlords don't interfere with the economy, and people don't go looting in the markets; the economic system is functional. It *is* pure capitalism, or as close as anyone has ever come to it.


Not much of a market, either. It's mostly collapsed into chaos.


Wrong. The market is perfectly functional in Somalia. As I indicated in my first post, Somalia offers the cheapest phone rates, mobile phones and Internet cafés in Africa, for example, and the warlords don't interfere with that. There's a regular market held in Mogadishu; if it were constantly disrupted, it would have ceased.

Well I would suggest that any governing body is a government, and many things other than states have governing bodies, for instance a committee or club. Your explanation of state seems to exclude societies or communities that whose existence is based on something other exclusive human occupation of a particular territory (for instance a hunter-gatherer society who's range includes land occupied by non-members of the community/society).

Coercion is only relevent where and if there is resistence either percieved or actual. So in the case of a club or a group membership of which is voluntary the closest thing to coercion is to not include someone who refuses to be governed, I notice that you seem to have already excluded this as a form or coercion because it would leave people no worse off than if the thing excluding them (or leaving them alone) were not existent.
Hmm. I might have a problem with my translation, but I am fairly sure that only states have governments as I think about it. The leaders of normal organisations are called other things like councils, commitees and boards, depending on what kind of organisation it is.

Tribes and clans that don't claim exclusive rights over a territory are not states. That was precisely the ones I wanted to exclude by talking about 'territory' instead of 'group of people', which otherwise would have been a simpler formulation.

There is always percieved resistence to an ordered society. It's called crime... In one way or another all societies use coercion to control crime. That can be distributed, laws determined by concensus and enforcement mainly by avoiding those who commit crimes, and otherwise by individuals or small groups acting. In that case there is no state (or doesn't have to be). Or there can be some subgroup of people who makes threats against everyone to make them obey, and have enough force to make it stick. And in the latter case that is the state.

By contrast, in Somalia, you have an unimpeded free market with no government regulation. Yes, there's chaos, but the warlords don't interfere with the economy, and people don't go looting in the markets; the economic system is functional. It *is* pure capitalism, or as close as anyone has ever come to it.I would agree with the last part of the last sentence - that it's as close as anyone has ever come to pure capitalism. I can see the validity of Vitto's post: that capitalism requires respect of property rights, which Somalia doesn't have.

I suppose that what this means is that the only way a pure capitalist society will arise is the same way that a pure communist society would arise: purely from ideological fervor.

By contrast, in Somalia, you have an unimpeded free market with no government regulation. Yes, there's chaos, but the warlords don't interfere with the economy, and people don't go looting in the markets; the economic system is functional. It *is* pure capitalism, or as close as anyone has ever come to it.
Capitalism also requires that most people realise that cooperation is a better way of getting what you want than violence. Somalia is not at all statist or socialist, but the warlords still get away with way too much coercion to call it pure capitalism. The mixture is anarchocapitalism and Hobbesian anarchism. If the Somalis work out a way to protect themselves from rougue warlords (for example some of the warlords might sell protection against the others) they will be the first anarchocapitalist society in modern times.

And as you say later in your post they already see some benefits of freer markets. Probably they are already close enough to a working stateless society that they can be used as an argument for the possibility of such a society.

I would agree with the last part of the last sentence - that it's as close as anyone has ever come to pure capitalism. I can see the validity of Vitto's post: that capitalism requires respect of property rights, which Somalia doesn't have.

I suppose that what this means is that the only way a pure capitalist society will arise is the same way that a pure communist society would arise: purely from ideological fervor.

*nods*

Upon reflection, I would tend to agree.

Thats not pure capitalism.

Again, you say that a free market needs property rights. As i said before, these warlords provide protection of property rights. If yoiu have payed your dues, and everyone must, to prevent the free rider problem, the warlord will defend the city.

Also, someone stated that protection against warlords would make it pure capitalism. The warlords do offer protection from each other, especially in cities that are split between warlords. That ios your competition, that is your market.

Again, you say that a free market needs property rights. As i said before, these warlords provide protection of property rights. If yoiu have payed your dues, and everyone must, to prevent the free rider problem, the warlord will defend the city.

Also, someone stated that protection against warlords would make it pure capitalism. The warlords do offer protection from each other, especially in cities that are split between warlords. That ios your competition, that is your market.
They have a traditional honor based justice system that protects property rights far better than any violence based system. Each clan has respected well known men who work as arbiters. If anyone commits a crime and fails to pay restitution his honor is trashed and he will lose much more by being shunned by everyone than he can gain from the crime. At the same time all members of his family loses honor, so they will check each other to ensure that no one does anything wrong, and compensates any victims if they have hurt anyone. This does keep crime between Somalis living in their clan areas almost to zero.

There also is a free and well functioning market. For example Somalia has five times as much export now as when Barre was thrown out. And they have as least as good infrastructure as comparable African states.

The service provided by the war lords is protection against other warlords, and against foreign invaders. But they still are used to fighting for power and using power to get other things. This is wasteful and destructive (besides it violates the non agression axiom). One single pitched battle costs as much as $100 000. Nothing is worth that much to a private enterprise (yes there are things that are worth $100 000, but nothing is worth throwing that much out repeatedly when your efforts normally just lead to destroying for somebody else). Consequently even the warlords do become more peaceful and smart, and they are certainly preferrable to standard governments, but they are not yet fully adapted to the capitalist society.

Democracy, perhaps. Civilisation, nyet.


And what do you say makes a nation "civilised"?

Hmm. I might have a problem with my translation, but I am fairly sure that only states have governments as I think about it. The leaders of normal organisations are called other things like councils, commitees and boards, depending on what kind of organisation it is.
Well that's kind of begging the question. Why would the processes by which government of an organisation occurs, not be properly called a government of some kind? It would be irregular for something to be properly described by a verb but not the noun when the verb and noun are the same.

Tribes and clans that don't claim exclusive rights over a territory are not states. That was precisely the ones I wanted to exclude by talking about 'territory' instead of 'group of people', which otherwise would have been a simpler formulation.
Why exclude such groups if they are characterised by some form of government or other?

There is always percieved resistence to an ordered society.
Not all societies are characterised by crime. Although if you restrict government to only referring (in it's noun capacity) to nations then in practise your assertion would match reality. However if one were to be describing a (fictional) utopian society they (the author) might decide that there is no crime. Would it then be semantically incorrect to refer to the leaders of that fictional utopia as a 'government'? I'm not certain the convential use of the word would exclude it's use in such a case, but any definition that requires coercion would exclude such a usage.

It's called crime... In one way or another all societies use coercion to control crime. That can be distributed, laws determined by concensus and enforcement mainly by avoiding those who commit crimes, and otherwise by individuals or small groups acting. In that case there is no state (or doesn't have to be). Or there can be some subgroup of people who makes threats against everyone to make them obey, and have enough force to make it stick. And in the latter case that is the state.
I'm not simply refusing to continue an association is coercion. Coercion involves constraining, however if one simply refuses to continue association and the behaviour of the person avoided remains unchanged, then the person has not been constrained, so coercion has not occured.

No, I'm just lazy,
Thanks for admitting it. But that doesn't get you off the hook. It's up to you to get a dictionary.

Ignore my name and listen.

State how this isn't capitalism.
State how it is.

There has never been a communist society on a nationwide scale.
Except for all of the communist countries that have ever existed, you mean.

Do some research.


Do some research. By contrast, in Somalia, you have an unimpeded free market with no government regulation.
No, you have chaos and some parts with relatively stable markets. But it's not an "unimpeded free market". And no, it's not "pure capitalism", nor close to it, nor as close as anyone has ever come to it. Do some research.



Wrong. The market is perfectly functional in Somalia.
Wrong. It is not functional everywhere.

Wrong. It is not functional everywhere.
Yes it is, just look at world of warcraft. Depending on server, supply, and race conditions, the prices of various items varies wildly.

Probably they are already close enough to a working stateless society that they can be used as an argument for the possibility of such a society.
:confused: There have been plenty of stateless societies....:confused:

Well that's kind of begging the question. Why would the processes by which government of an organisation occurs, not be properly called a government of some kind? It would be irregular for something to be properly described by a verb but not the noun when the verb and noun are the same.
I have never heard of government of chess clubs. Neither as verb or as a noun. And if I'd see a need for a single word for the leadership of a club and of a state, then I'd call them leaders or leadership, and lead for verb. If that is what government means I want a word for the government of a state.

Why exclude such groups if they are characterised by some form of government or other?
Again because there are other words to describe that. The extremely general word is leader, and the leaders of tribes are chieftains or councils. And when you say government you don't mean the leader of a nomadic tribe. If you do you are unique.;)

Not all societies are characterised by crime. Although if you restrict government to only referring (in it's noun capacity) to nations then in practise your assertion would match reality.
Most societies are not characterised by crime, but they must still deal with crime. As soon as there is anyone who controls scarce resources there is temptation for crimes (or for using violence to get what you want without respect for others). A successful society must have some mechanism that prevents this from being the norm.

However if one were to be describing a (fictional) utopian society they (the author) might decide that there is no crime. Would it then be semantically incorrect to refer to the leaders of that fictional utopia as a 'government'? I'm not certain the convential use of the word would exclude it's use in such a case, but any definition that requires coercion would exclude such a usage.
I would probably call it government, and with that imply that they would need the capacity and readiness for extreme violence to completely stop crimes.

But if you have no crime, would that not mean that there is no non-government-based coercion? So you could just call it government and justify the implicit claim about coercion with whatever they do to make people obey decisions.

Or if you are making up a pure utopia you could illustrate the benevolence of the leaders by calling them god kings or philosofer kings or something of that kind.

I'm not simply refusing to continue an association is coercion. Coercion involves constraining, however if one simply refuses to continue association and the behaviour of the person avoided remains unchanged, then the person has not been constrained, so coercion has not occured.
That's correct. But sometimes refusal of association is not enough to stop crime. If a friend of yours is being raped you don't just calmly say "I won't sell my car to the rapist". Then violence is necessary to stop the crime at once. I was referring to a threat of ostracism as a means for preventing many crimes with little damage, and for enforcing court decisions so that a low level of vigilantism can be enough violence for dealing with crimes. That would be the kind of society where you don't need a state. And no government.

:confused: There have been plenty of stateless societies....:confused:
Yes, but not this large, this recently and this successfully for this long time. Or please enlighten me, I will appreciate another example.

I have never heard of government of chess clubs. Neither as verb or as a noun.
You havent?! (Well obviously since you say as much...) :eek:

I wonder if that's a result of localised language use or a result of contextual use. I know I've definately heard phrases such as 'the government of the school', 'the government of the club' etc...I've definately come across government used as a verb for non-state social groups in various classes.

And if I'd see a need for a single word for the leadership of a club and of a state, then I'd call them leaders or leadership, and lead for verb. If that is what government means I want a word for the government of a state.
Well I understand it is conventional to refer to state ruling bodies as governments, but surely that is because such bodies 'govern'. I dont believe that the word government infers 'state' (or anything similar). My Oxford lists government as having the meaning 'system of governing' as one of it's usages/meainings. Under govern it includes 'regulate proceedings of (corporation...etc)'.

I tend to think that 'the government' (of a State) comes from earlier usage rather than the other way around, although this is just my 'feeling' based on how the word is described (in dictionary) how I have heard it used (by people who could for all I know have been using it incorrectly) and isnt based on any etymological knowledge or particular knowledge about the word....

Again because there are other words to describe that. The extremely general word is leader, and the leaders of tribes are chieftains or councils. And when you say government you don't mean the leader of a nomadic tribe. If you do you are unique.;)
Well I have heard of the governing of tribes and bands, even in tribes and bands that dont have 'leaders' (other than people who due to age, experiance and personality have more influence than others). That's why I didnt find your definition entirely comprehensive. I have for instance heard usages such as 'the government of the band proceeds mostly through it's members adherence to shared values'. I cant recall it being used in a noun sense in this manner 'off-hand' but I'm reluctant to exclude such a use given ssuch usages of it in verb form (of course this is based on the presumption that such usages were semantically correct).

As I say above I suspect that 'government' in the sense of the word used to describe the ruling body of a state derives from the use of the words governing and government to describe the regulation or structuring of proceedings, and not the other way around...do you have some reason to believe otherwise, (or know any entymologists), or are you (like me) speculating somewhat based on your knowledge of language and your awareness of the word's usage?

Most societies are not characterised by crime, but they must still deal with crime.
Or abberation as the case may be. It all comes down to whether 'govern' to describe the structuring/management of proceedings derives from 'government' in the sense of ruling/administering a state, or vice-versa I suppose. :confused:

As for crime and aberrance in many societies these are (or were) more or less prevented from being socially destructive either by traditional reactions or by pragmatism.

As soon as there is anyone who controls scarce resources there is temptation for crimes
Depends on what you mean by control and scarce resources. A lot of societies have not really had scarce resources in the sense of property that is owned and kept from others.

Of course I am not talking about societies at a state level here, but am referring to the small scale societies that predominated (so far as I can tell) for most of human history. So whether or not such societies are relevent in terms of applying the word government comes back to whether the word refers strictly to states or not.

(or for using violence to get what you want without respect for others). A successful society must have some mechanism that prevents this from being the norm.
I'm not convinced there is any reason to see extreme violence as the norm, as for minor violence, if it were the norm (and I dont know that it is or isnt), then it would be less destructive to social relations than the same acts in a society where violence is considered unacceptable, much in the way that if a society accepts a person upraiding another, it is not particularly destructive to social relations.

I would probably call it government, and with that imply that they would need the capacity and readiness for extreme violence to completely stop crimes.
In many societies several factors that can prevent social disintegration or disruption and that act to encourage some behaviours whilst discouraging others include belief/value systems (the idea that fertility of the land and it's resources is dependent on certain human behaviours for instance, or the fact that personal prestige and worth might be valued in social relations rather than material possession), pragmatism (the need to retain the cooperation of others in order to ensure one's own subsistence) and familiarity (one's entire regular social group are related as kin and near by groups are also related by some kin connection).

But if you have no crime, would that not mean that there is no non-government-based coercion? So you could just call it government and justify the implicit claim about coercion with whatever they do to make people obey decisions.
Well in some groups the group makes a decision based on everyone's inclination and practical considerations and if some members dont agree they either tag along because it is in their interests to not 'go somewhere else/do something else' or they dont tag along. There is not necessarily any person or group of persons who will hold them accountable or force them physically to act or not act. I believe coercion refers to placing some constraint on someone rather than that someone simply not have an alternative that they prefer. For instance I am coerced into obey the law (use of force can be employed if I decide otherwise), I am not constrained to earn money (no one will physically force me to do so, or use physical force/the threat of physical force to punish me if I dont), but if I dont I will be forced to try to find shelter, food etc without the benefit of money which makes earning a living a better alternative.

Or if you are making up a pure utopia you could illustrate the benevolence of the leaders by calling them god kings or philosofer kings or something of that kind.
In the fictional case, if they were a group of people who made up rules, considered existing rules and told people how they might make amends for breach of rules, all without actually ever forcing obediance, and who also attended to any necessarily administration to ensure the maintenance of civil structures etc, then I dont see why it would be semantically incorrect to call them a government to state that the utopia's government is practised through them and by them, or to describe them as governing.
(Philospher King does have a certain ring to it though doesnt it?;)

That's correct. But sometimes refusal of association is not enough to stop crime.
In such a case coercion would be probably be employed. But for the sake of reckoning the semantic use of words, the liklihood of the word being needed in such a capacity isnt relevent so much as whether or not it could be used in such a capacity.

If a friend of yours is being raped you don't just calmly say "I won't sell my car to the rapist". Then violence is necessary to stop the crime at once. I was referring to a threat of ostracism as a means for preventing many crimes with little damage, and for enforcing court decisions so that a low level of vigilantism can be enough violence for dealing with crimes. That would be the kind of society where you don't need a state. And no government.
This type of "force" is not what he was talking about (should refer to at least). The worst the steel company can do if the construction company refuses to comply is to leave them alone. In that case the construction company is no worse off than if there was no steel company. If you instead disobey the government they do, as a last resort, use direct violence, sending representatives to drag you off to prison. That is the difference between governments and normal corporations.
It seems to me that you are defining the coercion of the type meant when refering to 'governmental coercion' as being something other than refusal to continue association/cooperation.

That being the case I intended my comments to mean that your definition of governmental coercion (taken in conjunction with the comments regarding corporations) required the coercion be more forceful than mere dissasociation or refusal to continue cooperation.

I did not mean to infer that refusal to associate or continue cooperation could in any particular case be effective in coercing a person, but rather that your definition (of government and the coercion required to establish that something is a government) excluded societies where such a reaction is the recourse in instances of abberant behaviour by individuals.


Another point in opposition to the idea of a dominent rule force within a state, is the fact that 'local government' is not the dominent ruling force but is described as government. I could be wrong but I tend to believe that govenment as a verb describes the process of structuring or maintaining structure rather than the actions of a particular kind of body (ie a state government).

Except for all of the communist countries that have ever existed, you mean.


*sigh*

Obviously you have little or no knowledge of communism. I suggest you look up a proper definition of the notion. There has never been a nation-wide communist society. To state otherwise is merely gross ignorance and misuse of words.