imported post
KBCraig wrote:
longwatch wrote:
I thought that too at first but his definition of anarchy is not the political one you are using rather that of a state of lawlessness and disorder that causes suffering. Which if the system collapses is very possible. Think LA 1992, Katrina, Somalia.
Those are three interesting examples. In both South Central and NOLA, we had highly governed, welfare-dependent, regulated populations and a strong "us-versus-them" relationship with police and government. (That attitude went both ways.)
The sudden devolution of order in those places didn't come from the collapse of law or government. Law and government were still in place, and responded to disorder with even stronger force, attempting to create order, seeking to establish order even through extra-legal means. (Well, okay, in NOLA some of the government elements partook in the lawlessness and disorder themselves.
)
In Somalia, the violence doesn't come from the absence of government, but rather from attempts to establish it. Whether they're tribal warlords or UN "peacekeepers", it is the
archists who use violence to force others to do things their way. The ordinary people are too busy engaging in free trade and unregulated commerce, doing things like creating the world's best wireless communication network.
Exactly what I was thinking!
LA'92 wassparked off when government forces beat an unarmed man nearly to deathand video leaked out. Subsequently, government failed to punish these men, implicitly endorsinggovernment-backed violence. And, this next point is key, prior to this government had, for various reasons, built a relationship of mistrust and malice with the residents of the rioting neighborhoods, the background of which stretches back to the days of Jim Crow and spread throughout society. Government responded by mobilizing
Marines to "restore order". You will note that neighborhoods which did rely on outside help and which had many people armed and prepared (namely the Korean shop owners) were the neighborhoods which suffered less damage.
It was, in fact, that image of a Korean businessman standing atop his shop's roof with a Kalashnikov that turned me forever away from gun control. (I wish I could find that picture, I distinctly remember seeing it on CNN at the time).
That man was maintaining rule of law better than any costumed tax-feeders were able to do that day, and
that should be the template for the American Citizen.
Katrina, also, a disaster caused and made worse after the fact by government. Government built the levies, told everyone they were safe, and allowed so many people to be dependent onpublic welfare. Then after the disaster, government attempted to restore order by
abrogating rule of law, and confiscating firearms unlawfully and unconstitutionally. Fix it by force, that's the only way government knows how to do things, and rule of law be damned in favor of order and control.
Somalia? I read an interesting article about Somalia a few years ago in
liberty magazine by a person who had visited it and took notes. Somalia is the closest thing to "anarchy" as you may find; they have no central rulers, but they
do have rule of law. If you steal and get caught, you will face accusations in a tribal/clan/family court, and if found guilty, you will be made to pay restitution. Nobody is taxed at gunpoint to pay for you to go to prison. Likewise for other crimes. There is rule of law there, but it's highly decentralized and not at all what we western statists are used to.
Problems start when the UN, usually backed by the US and other powers, tries to impose some sort of government there, by backing one warlord over others. About the best argument for Somolis to get their own government would be to protect them from us and other outside forces which all want to control them. Leave them alone and watch how humans spontaneously order themselves for peaceful commerce. (Not practical; if we aren't intervening there someone else always will be).
We Americans love to talk about how free we are, but we are scared to death of facing life without a powerful state to govern and regulate us, to protect us, to do our homework for us regarding things like food safety and controlling street crime.
So the video is correct so far as the assertion that a breakdown in government control leads to disorder and lawlessness, because we have been conditioned to believe that lack of government means lack of self-control.
