Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Anarchism

Posted Oct 10, '12 at 8:38pm

EnigmaX

EnigmaX

100 posts

I suppose I was thinking of the leaders of the somali pirates as warlords. I dunno.

And isn't the term "stateless society" a bit of an oxymoron?

 

Posted Oct 11, '12 at 12:03pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,853 posts

Knight

No it isn't an oxymoron. Society is just a term for a group of related people, or such a group in the same geographical space, sharing a distinctive culture and relation. There were human societies existing before anything like the State was first thought of, because State refers to an organized political community under a government.

 

Posted Oct 11, '12 at 2:41pm

BritHennerz

BritHennerz

364 posts

As an idea, anarchy may seem like a good thing; everyone working together, not lead, with a common goal of a community. But others will always try to exploit that, just look at Somalia, no government so no one can control the pirates.

 

Posted Oct 11, '12 at 2:42pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

they aint anarchists then.

however they need more media attention. it's a thread for nearly all nations. and only 1 of them is really fighting. they don't even have any flighing weapons. 1 aircraft carrier would fix allot of it. then give somaliland jurisdiction over it and fund them. could be all done within 10 year.

 

Posted Oct 11, '12 at 4:30pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,957 posts

Knight

I think the individualistic nature of many humans, especially in industrial countries, prevent the functioning of a truly anarchistic society. Too many sacrifices would have to be made, too many possibilities to take advantage of it. From a social evolution standpoint, it's a strategy that easily gets out-selected and thus won't establish any time soon.

 

Posted Oct 12, '12 at 12:12am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,853 posts

Knight

they aint anarchists then.

however they need more media attention. it's a thread for nearly all nations. and only 1 of them is really fighting. they don't even have any flighing weapons. 1 aircraft carrier would fix allot of it. then give somaliland jurisdiction over it and fund them. could be all done within 10 year.

No it's not as simple as people think it is. It's not as simple as bombing bases, because such bases are often in urban areas, the complexity of warlord relations, the weakness of the central government which can't even control Moghadishu properly. Above all, the humanitarian situation that can't be fixed just through stop gap measures of food aid. Also, unwillingness of foreign publics to send in troops.

 

Posted Oct 12, '12 at 8:22am

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

it's not as simple as people think it is. It's not as simple as bombing bases, because such bases are often in urban areas,

it's not like afghanistan. in this war there is a real frontline.

the weakness of the central government which can't even control Moghadishu properly.

thats why we should give jurisdiction to somaliland.
who is doing good for itself. but is not even internationally acknowledge yet.

the humanitarian situation that can't be fixed just through stop gap measures of food aid. Also, unwillingness of foreign publics to send in troops.

thats not what i mend whit fund them.
i mend fund them like the marshall plan. but whit many more countrys. because we all will profit from a stable somalia.

 

Posted Oct 12, '12 at 12:17pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,853 posts

Knight

it's not like afghanistan. in this war there is a real frontline.

If we've learnt anything from Black Hawk Down, and the UN mission in the 1990s, it's no, front lines are ill defined.

thats why we should give jurisdiction to somaliland.
who is doing good for itself. but is not even internationally acknowledge yet.

It's not your call to divide up a sovereign nation. Would you like it if the Netherlands is arbitrarily split up by international intervention?

i mend fund them like the marshall plan. but whit many more countrys. because we all will profit from a stable somalia.

The rest of the world needs some MP of its own.

 

Posted Oct 12, '12 at 4:49pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

front lines are ill defined.

ive seen a docu about the front line last week. i will seek if i can find it on i-net and in english for you

It's not your call to divide up a sovereign nation. Would you like it if the Netherlands is arbitrarily split up by international intervention?

somaliland is not a nation. and i don't argue that it should be. (it would be good tho) what i argue for is that the incapable government of somalia should be striped of it's powers and given to the somaliland government. the shape of the country will stay the same and nothing gets divided (it's already divided now but w/e) it will only change the government system. what would go very smooth as the new government does already exists and is working.

The rest of the world needs some MP of its own.

the marshall plan was to rebuild europe.
does the rest of the world need to rebuild?
does somalia need to be rebuild?
and if you mean the whole world is in debt. then the best thing would be to just forget it all and start over.

 

Posted Oct 13, '12 at 1:52am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,853 posts

Knight

ive seen a docu about the front line last week. i will seek if i can find it on i-net and in english for you

If it's the al shahab and Kenyan front line, even then it's fuzzy. Al shahab still
controls swathes of the countryside even after it's last major port fell last week, yet no one knows where this area of control extends to.

somaliland is not a nation. and i don't argue that it should be. (it would be good tho) what i argue for is that the incapable government of somalia should be striped of it's powers and given to the somaliland government. the shape of the country will stay the same and nothing gets divided (it's already divided now but w/e) it will only change the government system. what would go very smooth as the new government does already exists and is working.

The Somaliland government has no wish to control the whole of Somalia, being a separatist movement at it's roots, so it would be pointless. And it would go against the year long mission of the UN and the AU in the capital, which is to prop the central government up.

the marshall plan was to rebuild europe.
does the rest of the world need to rebuild?
does somalia need to be rebuild?
and if you mean the whole world is in debt. then the best thing would be to just forget it all and start over.

This is incredibly short sighted. Which creditor would allow a country to forfeit it's loans, essentially giving it money? No government will. China is owed billions by the USA, would you think China is willing to allow the US to go scot free?

The Marshall Plan required a huge financial backer, yet no one today is capable of rescuing a continent, let alone the world.

 
Reply to Anarchism

You must be logged in to post a reply!