Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Actually, don't they ALL have that power unless the government prevents them from using it?

[GreatJustice]

Technically, but then businesses don't claim a monopoly on the use of aggressive force. Ergo, either you have a government that would only prevent businesses from using it but not using it in aid of those businesses ("The Night Watchman state") or else you would have a dynamic market for security and associated services ("Market anarchism/Voluntarism"). On that note, if the US government suddenly decided to operate as a for profit competitive enterprise within a geographical area it wouldn't really be a state as we know it even if it called itself "The United States of America" or "The Government", and the opposite would hold true if Exxon started taking the roles of the State even if it still called itself a corporation.

[penguinofhonor]

I don't think companies using government to keep competition down is evidence of a flaw in government - companies will use whatever power is at their disposal to do that.

Sure, but then the government is actually capable of physically preventing you from competing by sending goons to your home and threatening to toss you in a cage, rob you, or murder you if you resist. Companies generally don't have that capability.

And in the absence of a government that uses force, whoever has the most force becomes the government.

[GreatJustice]

I don't think companies using government to keep competition down is evidence of a flaw in government - companies will use whatever power is at their disposal to do that.

Sure, but then the government is actually capable of physically preventing you from competing by sending goons to your home and threatening to toss you in a cage, rob you, or murder you if you resist. Companies generally don't have that capability.

And in the absence of a government that uses force, whoever has the most force becomes the government.

Now that depends on a lot of things, not in the least being what the many other governments decide to do. Hell, Somalia was pretty stable for a while until the UN and the US started mucking about funding warlords in conquest sprees and motivating Islamists to band together against them, and Somalia wasn't ever a country known for stability.

[Aqizzar]

Hell, Somalia was pretty stable for a while until the UN and the US started mucking about funding warlords in conquest sprees and motivating Islamists to band together against them, and Somalia wasn't ever a country known for stability.

I drop into this thread once in a blue moon to see what's going on, and lo and behold it's the dumbest thing I've heard today.

Three things made Somalia more stable in the past than it is today: The Italian colonial government kicking the ass of anyone who looked at it funny; that the tools to be unstable as we know it today were not available (i.e. modern weaponry, cheap boats that can catch modern boats, etc), and that nobody had ever heard of it before meaning you really have no idea what a shithole Somalia has always been.

But hey, I'm not going to stop you from believing that the UN exists to make the world worse, so do carry this argument that international intervention made Somalia more of a disaster to it's logical conclusion.

[Leafsnail]

Now that depends on a lot of things, not in the least being what the many other governments decide to do. Hell, Somalia was pretty stable for a while until the UN and the US started mucking about funding warlords in conquest sprees and motivating Islamists to band together against them, and Somalia wasn't ever a country known for stability.

What does this even have to do with anything

[GreatJustice]

Hell, Somalia was pretty stable for a while until the UN and the US started mucking about funding warlords in conquest sprees and motivating Islamists to band together against them, and Somalia wasn't ever a country known for stability.

I drop into this thread once in a blue moon to see what's going on, and lo and behold it's the dumbest thing I've heard today.

Three things made Somalia more stable in the past than it is today: The Italian colonial government kicking the ass of anyone who looked at it funny; that the tools to be unstable as we know it today were not available (i.e. modern weaponry, cheap boats that can catch modern boats, etc), and that nobody had ever heard of it before meaning you really have no idea what a shithole Somalia has always been.

But hey, I'm not going to stop you from believing that the UN exists to make the world worse, so do carry this argument that international intervention made Somalia more of a disaster to it's logical conclusion.

So you're saying the US and UN weren't funding secular warlords in Somalia then?

[Aqizzar]

Hell, Somalia was pretty stable for a while until the UN and the US started mucking about funding warlords in conquest sprees and motivating Islamists to band together against them, and Somalia wasn't ever a country known for stability.

I drop into this thread once in a blue moon to see what's going on, and lo and behold it's the dumbest thing I've heard today.

Three things made Somalia more stable in the past than it is today: The Italian colonial government kicking the ass of anyone who looked at it funny; that the tools to be unstable as we know it today were not available (i.e. modern weaponry, cheap boats that can catch modern boats, etc), and that nobody had ever heard of it before meaning you really have no idea what a shithole Somalia has always been.

But hey, I'm not going to stop you from believing that the UN exists to make the world worse, so do carry this argument that international intervention made Somalia more of a disaster to it's logical conclusion.

So you're saying the US and UN weren't funding secular warlords in Somalia then?

How do I answer this... To I try to answer it logically by pointing out that every power in Somalia is a warlord, so if you want stability you just have to pick which one you distrust the least?

Or do I point out that you really don't care what the answer is, as long as it gives you a springboard to continue your symposium on how government action is always the problem in every circumstance?

I guess I'll just do both, as cheekily as possible.

[Nadaka]

The Jim's doesn't have power in the libertarian utopia because unions are for pinko commie bastards.

[GreatJustice]

Hell, Somalia was pretty stable for a while until the UN and the US started mucking about funding warlords in conquest sprees and motivating Islamists to band together against them, and Somalia wasn't ever a country known for stability.

I drop into this thread once in a blue moon to see what's going on, and lo and behold it's the dumbest thing I've heard today.

Three things made Somalia more stable in the past than it is today: The Italian colonial government kicking the ass of anyone who looked at it funny; that the tools to be unstable as we know it today were not available (i.e. modern weaponry, cheap boats that can catch modern boats, etc), and that nobody had ever heard of it before meaning you really have no idea what a shithole Somalia has always been.

But hey, I'm not going to stop you from believing that the UN exists to make the world worse, so do carry this argument that international intervention made Somalia more of a disaster to it's logical conclusion.

So you're saying the US and UN weren't funding secular warlords in Somalia then?

How do I answer this... To I try to answer it logically by pointing out that every power in Somalia is a warlord, so if you want stability you just have to pick which one you distrust the least?

Or do I point out that you really don't care what the answer is, as long as it gives you a springboard to continue your symposium on how government action is always the problem in every circumstance?

I guess I'll just do both, as cheekily as possible.

So they did fund warlords in Somalia, creating inbalances in power leading to the creation of various coalitions against them. So thanks for (reluctantly) admitting that.

Heya, here's a tip; creating stability requires a bit more than "Let's fund this goon to take over and make things safe", since it makes every other goon realize that his days are numbered if he doesn't do something fast. Not to mention that the last time that happened in Somalia they ended up with Siad Barre, under whom Somalia was actually significantly worse under nearly all measures compared to the Somalia of today which is really saying something.

But besides that, we're straying a bit far from "American politics" I'd say.

The Jim's doesn't have power in the libertarian utopia because unions are for pinko commie bastards.

The Jim's what?

[Leafsnail]

But besides that, we're straying a bit far from "American politics" I'd say.

I wonder whose fault that is...

[PanH]

UN didn't funded warlords. US did though. Annan condemned the support.

[mainiac]

So they did fund warlords in Somalia, creating inbalances in power leading to the creation of various coalitions against them. So thanks for (reluctantly) admitting that.

And it came to pass as Aqizzer foretold it.  And then GreatJustice did flame some more.

[Aqizzar]

So thanks for (reluctantly) admitting that.

I didn't admit anything, because I didn't argue anything otherwise.  I was pointing out what a ridiculous argument and ridiculous example it is to try to support any point in the first place, and how you were going to take any reply as an excuse to pat yourself on the back.

And yeah, Somali history really is quite a departure from American politics.  Care to tell everyone why you decided to bring it up?

[Osmosis Jones]

Posting to have something to eat popcorn to and enjoy on long nights.

_{Plus the flaming keeps my feet warm.}