eMansipater and anarchism

[eMansipater]

The problem with "popping out to Somalia" is that compared to what we're used to, of course it will be a poor place to live. Relative to neighboring countries, it has grown incredibly fast from being at essentially absolutely nothing, and is, again relative to its neighbors, a good place to live.

The only significant barrier to progress now is foreign government intervention.

"We're" quite varied--for example I've lived in two of its neighbours for a significant portion of my life.  That's one of the reasons it's so obvious to me that the wealthiest 5% of the world's quest for more resources is misplaced.  To put it bluntly, if you're drastically wealthier than most people in the world will be in your lifetime, perhaps more resources are a lousy way to be satisfied.  That about sums up my disinterest with resource-oriented political ideologies.

Good point, hadn't considered that

Where did you live? Able to comment on what it's like?

I've lived in both Ethiopia and Kenya, which together account for roughly 90% of the Somalian borders.  Can only comment briefly on Somalia via second-hand experience (mildly better than third-hand a.k.a. "news" I suppose), but happy to answer questions on Ethiopia and Kenya.  I'd have to start by saying that most Ethiopians and Kenyans would laugh at your idea that Somalia is a good place to live relative to them.

In Mogadishu, people submit to competing warlords' governments in turns. On the roads, they submit to the highwaymen. In the countryside they submit to the kritarchy of Xeer. Somalis do not enjoy anarchy.

I wasn't actually proposing that Somalis are living in a functional anarchy.  However, it is probably one of the best bets for someone to try and start living anarchistically without a government immediately preventing them.  Since there are both Somalis who will befriend you and Somalis who will try to kill you it is also a good place to understand the diversity of the human experience.

In Mogadishu, people submit to competing warlords' governments in turns. On the roads, they submit to the highwaymen. In the countryside they submit to the kritarchy of Xeer. Somalis do not enjoy anarchy.

...Honestly I'm not interested in talking with you FatherMcGruder, neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. In my opinion your argument doesn't make any sense and seems oppressive, and vice versa.

If it helps at all, as someone who doesn't identify strongly with either of your perspectives it appears to me that you two largely misunderstand each other.  The skill of creating meaningful dialogue with someone whose perspective you strongly oppose can be quite difficult to acquire--statistically two people who oppose each other tend to both veer further from reality due to human counterwill.

The only choice if I dislike the government is Somalia ?
 

If you prefer you can move to a different jurisdiction and try to convince the populace there to elect someone who will dissolve their government voluntarily.  But those are the breaks of being a very small person in a very big world--we all have to share this little blue dot.

[1714984406]

1714984406

[1714984406]

1714984406

[Garrett Burgwardt]

The problem with "popping out to Somalia" is that compared to what we're used to, of course it will be a poor place to live. Relative to neighboring countries, it has grown incredibly fast from being at essentially absolutely nothing, and is, again relative to its neighbors, a good place to live.

The only significant barrier to progress now is foreign government intervention.

"We're" quite varied--for example I've lived in two of its neighbours for a significant portion of my life.  That's one of the reasons it's so obvious to me that the wealthiest 5% of the world's quest for more resources is misplaced.  To put it bluntly, if you're drastically wealthier than most people in the world will be in your lifetime, perhaps more resources are a lousy way to be satisfied.  That about sums up my disinterest with resource-oriented political ideologies.

Good point, hadn't considered that

Where did you live? Able to comment on what it's like?

I've lived in both Ethiopia and Kenya, which together account for roughly 90% of the Somalian borders.  Can only comment briefly on Somalia via second-hand experience (mildly better than third-hand a.k.a. "news" I suppose), but happy to answer questions on Ethiopia and Kenya.  I'd have to start by saying that most Ethiopians and Kenyans would laugh at your idea that Somalia is a good place to live relative to them.

I'm going off of multiple studies done on quality of life stuff, such as access to water, healthcare, basic electronics and communication. Supposedly Somalia also has one of the best cellular services in the continent, at some of the cheapest rates.

[Anonymous]

The only choice if I dislike the government is Somalia ?
 

[eMansipater]

I'm going off of multiple studies done on quality of life stuff, such as access to water, healthcare, basic electronics and communication. Supposedly Somalia also has one of the best cellular services in the continent, at some of the cheapest rates.

Well, for that specific comment I'm simply telling you what most Ethiopians or Kenyans I know feel like.  There are a lot of complicated factors in true quality of life and as I said before material factors don't always play the precise role that some people think.  What in particular were those studies trying to estimate via those metrics?  To build out the picture, the PPP-adjusted per-capita GDP of Ethiopia is close to double Somalia's, and Kenya's is close to triple.  Certain factors, like infrastructure, are heavily impacted by geography: Somalia is a long strip of arid land with its population heavily concentrated on the coast, while Ethiopia is a mountainous highlands with people spread across most of the country.  Commerce in Somalia is also tied heavily to socio-religious homogeneity, with the vast majority of Somalians being Muslim.  The fact that so many money/banking matters are religiously tied (after all Mohammed pbuh was a business man) keeps those aspects more secure from conflict than many individuals.

I'd be surprised if Somalian technology and cell services truly surpass Kenya though--the latter has one of the highest levels of technology in Africa, with services such as cell phone payments used by 90% of households, and reasonably inexpensive wireless internet access across most of the country--it's the telecommunications hub for the whole region.  You can walk into a one room shop in a fairly remote town and the clerk will be sitting behind the counter browsing facebook.  Actually it's my experience with "M-Pesa" cell-phone payments in Kenya that convinces me BitCoin will go global as the internet does--one of the biggest reasons I'm excited about it.  The highest volume use of M-Pesa payments occurs with family members sending money between cities and rural areas--since this describes the bulk of Western Union's international business it bodes very well .

[em3rgentOrdr]

In a non-sarcastic way, I do believe you should pop out to Somalia and give it a try.  If the governments I pay taxes to ever threatened to invade...

The governments you pay for helped invade Somalia:

The war officially began shortly before July 20, 2006 when U.S. backed Ethiopian troops invaded Somalia to prop up the TFG in Baidoa.

and earlier https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993).

Oh yeah, and for the last time, Somalia's current political situation is as follows:

[eMansipater]

In a non-sarcastic way, I do believe you should pop out to Somalia and give it a try.  If the governments I pay taxes to ever threatened to invade...

The governments you pay for helped invade Somalia:

The war officially began shortly before July 20, 2006 when U.S. backed Ethiopian troops invaded Somalia to prop up the TFG in Baidoa.

and earlier https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993).

I'm quite a lot more aware of who exactly invaded Somalia than you are, since I actually know people who fought in the respective wars themselves, was in Ethiopia during one of them, and I could tell you some pretty gory details.  You are just making silly assumptions--I'm not american, and have never paid american taxes.  And could you resize that image?  It's unhelpfully large.

[em3rgentOrdr]

I'm quite a lot more aware of who exactly invaded Somalia than you are, since I actually know people who fought in the respective wars themselves, was in Ethiopia during one of them, and I could tell you some pretty gory details.  You are just making silly assumptions--I'm not american, and have never paid american taxes.  And could you resize that image?  It's unhelpfully large.

You don't live in a UN member nation?

[sortedmush]

In a non-sarcastic way, I do believe you should pop out to Somalia and give it a try.  If the governments I pay taxes to ever threatened to invade a functioning anarchism you can be guaranteed I would oppose it loud and clear.  Just like my taxes are only a portion of their budget, my input is only a portion of their decision process, but I tend to be quite effective at making my input at least as proportionally significant as my taxes.  In this case because of my personal contact with you I'm pretty sure I could reach a very large audience.

Personally, I'm actually working on the internal change issue myself--it's the foundation of all functioning societies regardless of how they are organised.  But specialising is good, and experimental anarchism would provide valuable data.  Just make sure to keep excellent records!

Unless anyone can demonstrate the validity of the social contract, I don't see why I should have to move anywhere. I wouldn't dream of suggesting the same thing to you. I'm working on internal change too. I think it's vital. I also think it will lead us to different conclusions, and we'll be waiting forever for everyone to be on the same internal page. It's my belief that the non initiation of violence is a universal principle that is presupposed by the act of debate. I will be acting according to this belief and the only thing that's going to stop me is violence. For a long time I thought that perhaps we should all move to an island somewhere, get some nukes and we'll be fine. This wouldn't help anyone but us. I'm not going to run and hide. I'm staying put and I'm going to show people that it's possible to live without being coerced.

Also, what do you think of the valuable data from 200 years of experimental minarchy? Namely the US constitution.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Unless anyone can demonstrate the validity of the social contract, I don't see why I should have to move anywhere. I wouldn't dream of suggesting the same thing to you. I'm working on internal change too. I think it's vital. I also think it will lead us to different conclusions, and we'll be waiting forever for everyone to be on the same internal page. It's my belief that the non initiation of violence is a universal principle that is presupposed by the act of debate. I will be acting according to this belief and the only thing that's going to stop me is violence. For a long time I thought that perhaps we should all move to an island somewhere, get some nukes and we'll be fine. This wouldn't help anyone but us. I'm not going to run and hide. I'm staying put and I'm going to show people that it's possible to live without being coerced.

+1

Yes, it is very hard to have a civil discussion with proponents of the so-called "social-contract" when they advocate deporting or locking up in government-run rape cages anyone near their geographical area who disagrees with them.

[eMansipater]

I'm quite a lot more aware of who exactly invaded Somalia than you are, since I actually know people who fought in the respective wars themselves, was in Ethiopia during one of them, and I could tell you some pretty gory details.  You are just making silly assumptions--I'm not american, and have never paid american taxes.  And could you resize that image?  It's unhelpfully large.

You don't live in a UN member nation?

You're digging a giant hole here buddy--I knew precisely what I was talking about.  During the first war I was too young to pay taxes, and during the second war the country I pay taxes to did not support the war with one cent.  And as a completely unrelated topic I opposed the war I was in the country during though not for reasons of anarchism but because of the complex politics involved which I'm sure you're quite ignorant of.  But all of these things aside, I said "functioning anarchism" and I suspect that Somalia is not your model of functioning anarchism.  And in interest of the larger discussion I ought to add that no matter who collects "points" from this particular issue it doesn't really contribute to a meeting and interaction of our respective ideas.  Me "getting to be right" in this paragraph is actually just a waste of both of our time--it says nothing about the validity or invalidity of our approaches.

Unless anyone can demonstrate the validity of the social contract, I don't see why I should have to move anywhere. I wouldn't dream of suggesting the same thing to you.

I would, if I were set on forming an incompatible society with the one I lived in whereas another compatible jurisdiction was available.  In fact, I regularly re-assess this possibility.  I've no idea what you mean by "the validity of the social contract" since I don't follow that model myself.  There is, however, the practical fact that human lives are interconnected and when one decides to start acting incompatibly with the community in which one lives one ought not to be overly surprised that the community sometimes objects.  Applies in a western democracy or the middle of Papua New Guinea.  Involving contracts in the situation doesn't seem to clarify the issue at all.

I'm working on internal change too. I think it's vital. I also think it will lead us to different conclusions, and we'll be waiting forever for everyone to be on the same internal page.

The same internal page isn't necessarily even desirable, but I do believe that reality itself is convergent, so if our internal change leads our map to better reflect the territory, we're all likely to benefit as social organisms.

It's my belief that the non initiation of violence is a universal principle that is presupposed by the act of debate. I will be acting according to this belief and the only thing that's going to stop me is violence. For a long time I thought that perhaps we should all move to an island somewhere, get some nukes and we'll be fine. This wouldn't help anyone but us. I'm not going to run and hide. I'm staying put and I'm going to show people that it's possible to live without being coerced.

An admirable decision.  I'm eager to have you demonstrate your position to me in this manner, if it is more correlated with reality than my own.  I've simply never heard a compelling cause for anarchy.  I'm under no delusion that our existing system is best--in fact I continually try to improve it myself for that very reason.

Also, what do you think of the valuable data from 200 years of experimental minarchy? Namely the US constitution.

I think it's an interesting idea, launched under less than ideal circumstances, which hasn't scaled terribly well.

Yes, it is very hard to have a civil discussion with proponents of the so-called "social-contract" when they advocate deporting or locking up in government-run rape cages anyone near their geographical area who disagrees with them.

Come now.  I'm being quite civil since as you're well aware I've advocated neither.  Rather, I've advocated the availability of access to alternatives.

[sortedmush]

I would, if I were set on forming an incompatible society with the one I lived in whereas another compatible jurisdiction was available.  In fact, I regularly re-assess this possibility.  I've no idea what you mean by "the validity of the social contract" since I don't follow that model myself.  There is, however, the practical fact that human lives are interconnected and when one decides to start acting incompatibly with the community in which one lives one ought not to be overly surprised that the community sometimes objects.  Applies in a western democracy or the middle of Papua New Guinea.  Involving contracts in the situation doesn't seem to clarify the issue at all.

I'm curious. Since you don't follow the social contract model. Do you have any argument for why I ought to leave? It seems as if you're simply warning me, that should I step outside the social norm, I should expect violence. I don't claim any magical power of contracts to solve social problems. I view them simply as a way to objectively demnstrate voluntary consent.

The same internal page isn't necessarily even desirable, but I do believe that reality itself is convergent, so if our internal change leads our map to better reflect the territory, we're all likely to benefit as social organisms.

I agree.

An admirable decision.  I'm eager to have you demonstrate your position to me in this manner, if it is more correlated with reality than my own.  I've simply never heard a compelling cause for anarchy.  I'm under no delusion that our existing system is best--in fact I continually try to improve it myself for that very reason.

I personally don't think that anarchy would work if the government disbanded over night. I suspect there would be utter chaos followed by another government. What I want to see is a gradual seperation of state and all products and services, achieved through peaceful non compliance. I believe that seperation of church and state is almost complete, and that seperation of state and economics is under way. I don't have a predicted or suggested timeline for this. But for me, I can't bear the thought that from now until the end of time, human beings (or any sentient beings) will fundementally need rulers.

I think it's an interesting idea, launched under less than ideal circumstances, which hasn't scaled terribly well.

What do you think went wrong?

[eMansipater]

I'm curious. Since you don't follow the social contract model. Do you have any argument for why I ought to leave?

There's no "ought".  There's only the "if living under the tyrannical force of a democratic state is unlivable, well, there is actually an alternative.  So by your own measure it can't be so overly terrible can it?"  Under our current set of circumstances I think this is the primary reason that anarchy comes off as so much whining.  Almost anyone posting on the internet is enjoying a higher material standard of living than 5 nines of human beings in history.  It's kind of unimpressive that some of them would be sitting there thinking "It's horrible that I have to give a percentage of this away.  Now if only I had my own private army, I could probably avoid that!"  Hardly inspirational, is it?

It seems as if you're simply warning me, that should I step outside the social norm, I should expect violence. I don't claim any magical power of contracts to solve social problems. I view them simply as a way to objectively demnstrate voluntary consent.

Yes, but in your anarchist model someone who does things you don't like (tries to take your property) will be subject to violence against their consent, and quite frankly I don't see the difference.  Every society has some sort of rules which if broken lead to negative consequences.  However if we produce many of them the ones people want to be in will evidently be more desirable.  And right now you must accept that more people want to be in democracies than in anarchies.

I personally don't think that anarchy would work if the government disbanded over night. I suspect there would be utter chaos followed by another government. What I want to see is a gradual seperation of state and all products and services, achieved through peaceful non compliance. I believe that seperation of church and state is almost complete, and that seperation of state and economics is under way. I don't have a predicted or suggested timeline for this. But for me, I can't bear the thought that from now until the end of time, human beings (or any sentient beings) will fundamentally need rulers.

In the final assessment I can agree that there probably exists a Nash Equilibrium at total nonviolence and therefore no further possible value to the external imposition of structure.  I'm happy to call it anarchism.  It's a long way away, but probably achievable if we don't destroy ourselves first.  I also believe there's likely to be a possible path from here to there both mentally and socially, with many intermediary steps.  I see present-day democracies as a mediocre but best-so-far environment within which the next step can emerge.

I think it's an interesting idea, launched under less than ideal circumstances, which hasn't scaled terribly well.

What do you think went wrong?

To whom, and when?  It's rather a long list.

[sortedmush]

There's no "ought".  There's only the "if living under the tyrannical force of a democratic state is unlivable, well, there is actually an alternative.  So by your own measure it can't be so overly terrible can it?"  Under our current set of circumstances I think this is the primary reason that anarchy comes off as so much whining.  Almost anyone posting on the internet is enjoying a higher material standard of living than 5 nines of human beings in history.  It's kind of unimpressive that some of them would be sitting there thinking "It's horrible that I have to give a percentage of this away.  Now if only I had my own private army, I could probably avoid that!"  Hardly inspirational, is it?

Looking at it like that I can understand why you'd think that way. It's not how I look at it. I think it can be easily demonstrated that taxation is not a voluntary contribution. Even if the government went on to spend it efficiently on solving problems, it doesn't change the fact that the means are inconsistent with the ends. How can you teach children that stealing is wrong when their education is funded through theft? Do you suggest that because I happen to live in relative comfort, I should ignore the atrocities that are carried out using resources exctracted from me through force? I can't ignore it. I am not interested in a private army. All I need to avoid it is crypto, an anonamous decentralised currency and other like minded individuals.

Yes, but in your anarchist model someone who does things you don't like (tries to take your property) will be subject to violence against their consent, and quite frankly I don't see the difference.  Every society has some sort of rules which if broken lead to negative consequences.  However if we produce many of them the ones people want to be in will evidently be more desirable.  And right now you must accept that more people want to be in democracies than in anarchies.

I won't harm anyone who takes my property. I will take steps to prevent people from taking it. If someone does take something of mine, I will try to take it back. If my attempts to retake what's mine are met with violence, I will defend myself. I will report incidents of theft to the community, so people are aware of individuals who have no regard for property. I will offer the theif an opportunity to explain himself to me before reporting him, in the hope of finding a peaceful way to help him get what he needs. This is a huge topic, and basically I don't think there's any hypothetical scenario you can throw at me that would lead me to conclude that we ought to resort to giving one group of individuals a monopoly on law creation, enforcement and dispute resolution.

In the final assessment I can agree that there probably exists a Nash Equilibrium at total nonviolence and therefore no further possible value to the external imposition of structure.  I'm happy to call it anarchism.  It's a long way away, but probably achievable if we don't destroy ourselves first.  I also believe there's likely to be a possible path from here to there both mentally and socially, with many intermediary steps.  I see present-day democracies as a mediocre but best-so-far environment within which the next step can emerge.

Exactly  I see democracy as a stepping stone. I don't personally think that we could have had anarchy this whole time. Although I do think we're ready to start spreading our wings right now.

To whom, and when?  It's rather a long list.

Yes, perhaps this should be discussed later in another thread?

[fetokun]

These discussions always get to incredibly specific and pointless points.

In the real world it all comes to the point where if you don't have a very well educated, informed and politicaly active population sonner or later the people will get screwed by the power of the government, the corporations or both.

[BitterTea]

These discussions always get to incredibly specific and pointless points.

In the real world it all comes to the point where if you don't have a very well educated, informed and politicaly active population sonner or later the people will get screwed by the power of the government, the corporations or both.

What's a pointless point?

In the real world, those who work in and depend on governments will use their influence to make their own situation better, generally to the detriment of the rest of the population.

[kiba]

These discussions always get to incredibly specific and pointless points.

In the real world it all comes to the point where if you don't have a very well educated, informed and politicaly active population sonner or later the people will get screwed by the power of the government, the corporations or both.

You can't have a politically informed population, fetokun. It's impossible.

There are thousand of political issues in the world and we're supposed to vote for politicans that supposedly can deal with thousand and thousand of political issues?

The US educational system isn't up to the task of informing the population what they should know about the issue. Even if they are, it would be an incredible amount of knowledges for each person to have.

Just because we know things, do you really think we would vote in our best long term interest?
 
Knowledge is dispersed all over the population. Accurate knowledge is difficult to assess if you're not an expert or rational. Never mind the obstacle of overcoming political tribalism and the problem of political irrationality.

Every bitcoiners here know how bitcoin and how the economy works, roughly. However, they are technically and economically savy. Do you really think your grandma/grandpa will be that savy?

As the economy grows, bitcoiners will find it impossible to keep up with bitcoin related information. Instead they will specialize into their niches. Some people will be well-informed about security. Others make a good living at writing fiction. Others know the economics of MMO currencies exchanges. Knowledge will become dispersed. They will be less and less likely to be able to make good decisions outside of the field of their expertise.

[FatherMcGruder]

Why do they fight against the establishment of any sort of government then?

You mean there are anarchist factions fighting Ethiopian invaders, al-Shabab, the UIC, etc? I think not. I would think that like most people, Somalis mostly settle for the authorities that offer the best comfort and survival rate.

And the Xeer is a truly private law enforcement system, nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps, but it's not anarchy. I mean, the Saudi family privately owns and runs Saudi Arabia. Would you call that anarchy?

Honestly I'm not interested in talking with you FatherMcGruder, neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. In my opinion your argument doesn't make any sense and seems oppressive, and vice versa.

I was a capitalist once, too, you know...

[fetokun]

These discussions always get to incredibly specific and pointless points.

In the real world it all comes to the point where if you don't have a very well educated, informed and politicaly active population sonner or later the people will get screwed by the power of the government, the corporations or both.

You can't have a politically informed population, fetokun. It's impossible.

There are thousand of political issues in the world and we're supposed to vote for politicans that supposedly can deal with thousand and thousand of political issues?

The US educational system isn't up to the task of informing the population what they should know about the issue. Even if they are, it would be an incredible amount of knowledges for each person to have.

Just because we know things, do you really think we would vote in our best long term interest?
 
Knowledge is dispersed all over the population. Accurate knowledge is difficult to assess if you're not an expert or rational. Never mind the obstacle of overcoming political tribalism and the problem of political irrationality.

Every bitcoiners here know how bitcoin and how the economy works, roughly. However, they are technically and economically savy. Do you really think your grandma/grandpa will be that savy?

As the economy grows, bitcoiners will find it impossible to keep up with bitcoin related information. Instead they will specialize into their niches. Some people will be well-informed about security. Others make a good living at writing fiction. Others know the economics of MMO currencies exchanges. Knowledge will become dispersed. They will be less and less likely to be able to make good decisions outside of the field of their expertise.

Yes, I agree with you. You're basically saying "it's not possible to be an expert in everything about politics", wich it's something pretty impossible to disagree with.

But a basic level of understanding would be a good start.

By basic level I mean, for instance, knowing that if you leave in a market-driven nation you are required to "vote" with each purchase you make. So you must buy from companies whose policies you view as beneficial to society as a whole and not buy based only on the price.

And if you leave in places where the government has a huge whole and influence, just showing up on the election day is not enough. You have to participate through various ways (reading, sending letters, protesting...)

I'm sure these is incredibly trivial and obvious to everyone here, but until these small facts become trival and obvious also to the average Joe, any system (even the ideal system you or anybody here have in mind) is doomed.

[­­­Atlas_]

These discussions always get to incredibly specific and pointless points.

In the real world it all comes to the point where if you don't have a very well educated, informed and politicaly active population sonner or later the people will get screwed by the power of the government, the corporations or both.

You can't have a politically informed population, fetokun. It's impossible.

There are thousand of political issues in the world and we're supposed to vote for politicans that supposedly can deal with thousand and thousand of political issues?

The US educational system isn't up to the task of informing the population what they should know about the issue. Even if they are, it would be an incredible amount of knowledges for each person to have.

Just because we know things, do you really think we would vote in our best long term interest?
 
Knowledge is dispersed all over the population. Accurate knowledge is difficult to assess if you're not an expert or rational. Never mind the obstacle of overcoming political tribalism and the problem of political irrationality.

Every bitcoiners here know how bitcoin and how the economy works, roughly. However, they are technically and economically savy. Do you really think your grandma/grandpa will be that savy?

As the economy grows, bitcoiners will find it impossible to keep up with bitcoin related information. Instead they will specialize into their niches. Some people will be well-informed about security. Others make a good living at writing fiction. Others know the economics of MMO currencies exchanges. Knowledge will become dispersed. They will be less and less likely to be able to make good decisions outside of the field of their expertise.

By basic level I mean, for instance, knowing that if you leave in a market-driven nation you are required to "vote" with each purchase you make. So you must buy from companies whose policies you view as beneficial to society as a whole and not buy based only on the price.

There is no such requirement. It cannot even be feasibly enforceable and collective agreement is highly unlikely. People will almost certainly buy products that achieve their ends reasonably. That is the victor in the freemarket. Besides, moral obligations are arbitrarily subjective. What will happen, happens. Idealism changes nothing.

[em3rgentOrdr]

You're digging a giant hole here buddy--I knew precisely what I was talking about.  During the first war I was too young to pay taxes, and during the second war the country I pay taxes to did not support the war with one cent.  And as a completely unrelated topic I opposed the war I was in the country during though not for reasons of anarchism but because of the complex politics involved which I'm sure you're quite ignorant of.  But all of these things aside, I said "functioning anarchism" and I suspect that Somalia is not your model of functioning anarchism.  And in interest of the larger discussion I ought to add that no matter who collects "points" from this particular issue it doesn't really contribute to a meeting and interaction of our respective ideas.  Me "getting to be right" in this paragraph is actually just a waste of both of our time--it says nothing about the validity or invalidity of our approaches.

Discouse is not a waste of time.  It is very important to nail some things out. For instance, was your non-support of the war a voluntary decision on your part or was it because you happend to be too young in the first war and happened by chance, for various complex political reasons, that the country you next lived in choose not to support the second war?  I am getting the impression that you think taxes are voluntary somehow, however your taxes not going to support the war was apparently entirely by chance from external circumstances outside of your control.

Yes, it is very hard to have a civil discussion with proponents of the so-called "social-contract" when they advocate deporting or locking up in government-run rape cages anyone near their geographical area who disagrees with them.

Come now.  I'm being quite civil since as you're well aware I've advocated neither.  Rather, I've advocated the availability of access to alternatives.
[/quote]

What exactly should be done to me for not paying taxes?