Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Has Liberalism Grown Flabby?

Page 3 of 3 [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

12 Mar 2012, 5:39 am

Burzum wrote:
Vigilans, though your criticisms are perfectly valid, my citation of the paper was not intended as a proof that anarchy works. Rather, it was intended as a demonstration of why Somalia is not proof that anarchy doesn't work. To quote the paper: "there is a tendency upon observing problems in distressed regions of the world to see only on the 'failure' of the current situation, ignoring the quite possibly even worse state of affairs that preceded it".

Meh, there are better examples for that. The anarchist communes in Spain during the Civil War worked smoothly, until they were overrun by Nationalist troops.

In any case, from the little I know of it, Somalia doesn't look like anarchy; more like... chaos, with power, which is the opposite of anarchy. It would be like saying that the fact that I can draw stick figures is not a proof that my neighbour cannot eat salad -- while this is technically valid, it doesn't make sense.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

12 Mar 2012, 12:21 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:
Burzum wrote:
Vigilans, though your criticisms are perfectly valid, my citation of the paper was not intended as a proof that anarchy works. Rather, it was intended as a demonstration of why Somalia is not proof that anarchy doesn't work. To quote the paper: "there is a tendency upon observing problems in distressed regions of the world to see only on the 'failure' of the current situation, ignoring the quite possibly even worse state of affairs that preceded it".

Meh, there are better examples for that. The anarchist communes in Spain during the Civil War worked smoothly, until they were overrun by Nationalist troops.

In any case, from the little I know of it, Somalia doesn't look like anarchy; more like... chaos, with power, which is the opposite of anarchy. It would be like saying that the fact that I can draw stick figures is not a proof that my neighbour cannot eat salad -- while this is technically valid, it doesn't make sense.


Well, what would count as regions in Somalia proper (aka the area with no real recovery) fit the chaos with power definition, but 2/3 of Somalia is under the control of unrecognized governments

I think what a lot of people think of as anarchy is actually true free market capitalism. Somalia might be one of the few places where actual free enterprise is possible, if you can get around the pirate warlords and bribe the right government officials


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

12 Mar 2012, 12:59 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Well, what would count as regions in Somalia proper (aka the area with no real recovery) fit the chaos with power definition, but 2/3 of Somalia is under the control of unrecognized governments

Lack of international recognition does not stop the reality of power.

OT: You location is Corinth or Carthage?



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

12 Mar 2012, 4:35 pm

noname_ever wrote:
Liberalism in America doesn't seem to have many Che Guevara. They seem to be more like Mr. Van Driessen from Beavis and Butthead. It's kind of hard to take the American left seriously.

Che Guevara was a Marxist revolutionary rather than a liberal. Socialism and liberalism can intersect. but Karl Marx explicitly denounced liberalism and "bourgeois democracy."



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

12 Mar 2012, 5:07 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
Liberalism in America doesn't seem to have many Che Guevara. They seem to be more like Mr. Van Driessen from Beavis and Butthead. It's kind of hard to take the American left seriously.

Che Guevara was a Marxist revolutionary rather than a liberal. Socialism and liberalism can intersect. but Karl Marx explicitly denounced liberalism and "bourgeois democracy."

Although, to be fair, liberalism had a different meaning at that time. But still, the Democrats are much closer to Classical Liberals than they are socialists (especially scary ones like Che Guevara).



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

12 Mar 2012, 5:09 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Well, what would count as regions in Somalia proper (aka the area with no real recovery) fit the chaos with power definition, but 2/3 of Somalia is under the control of unrecognized governments

Lack of international recognition does not stop the reality of power.


Definitely. I get quite annoyed when Somalia is described as "anarchy". There are actually many unrecognized nations throughout the world, with varying degrees of credibility. Somaliland is one of them, as is Puntland, if it desired independence (hopefully they'd rename their country too, as nobody I speak to about the topic holds a straight face when I mention "Puntland")


enrico_dandolo wrote:
OT: You location is Corinth or Carthage?


Carthage :)


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do