Anarchy was what made it bearable.
I can’t tell by your comment whether you think that’s a good thing or not.
Why is it all blocked off, too? So the authorities can’t get in?
Fascinating. Thanks for posting this.
Clayton -
Very interesting indeed.
That was quite an awfully produced documentary, but interesting nonetheless.
After seeing the documentary, I can’t seem to shake one idea form my mind: what population would an areas the size of Hong Kong attract if it became anarchic? Millions upon millions, judging by Kowloon’s experience! Such incredible overcrowding is needed to drive rents up (and provide discomfort enough) to compensate for the increased appeal of living free (migration equilibrium and stuff).
Can we expect 50 million people to be crammed in some Hong Kong area and take that for long, while neighboring statist lands lie idle?
An anarchic area, if large enough, will probably find it in its interest to expand vigorously, by means of war if necessary. I can see no way around that.
this was an anarcho cap society in the making… the only government intervention this city had was to get the drug lords out… after the drug lords left, the government left the city alone. The city had low crime rates and all of its services were private… the only State thing they adopted was the currency…
I still don’t understand why they would stay in that blocked-office piece of garbage, though. Is that the only way they could stay away from the government interfering? It would be so much cleaner and healthier outside in normal homes, if that’s not the case. I definitely wouldn’t use this video to convince people in the benefits of anarcho-capitalism in terms in lifestyle.
The area clearly had government, the triads and their protection racket. Perhaps what could be called an enlightened minarchist government that many here yearn for, but certainly no anarchy. It is the same kind of idealism here that claims Ireland and Iceland being anarchist in mideval times when they again were merely minarchist governed areas, with a well established monopoly on violence.
Well yes, but after they raided the drug lords out of power, they left the city alone… from 1975ish to 1990ish, the city experienced no government intervention. the only time the State police would enter the city was to collect data on crime rates, population, and standards of living… also, i agree it wasnt an anarchy society, but it was an anarchy society in the making
The documentary was made in 1989, just before the walled city got axed, and the triads were doing nice and tight, exploiting security from the inhabitants. Such is reality
you haven’t specified what anarchists you are talking about. but I assume it is anarcho-capitalists.
first of all, “anarchic area to wage war” means that all the people who are living in the specific geographical area where no state exists are voluntarily willing to contribute to a collective act of aggression against people who do not live in this area. this means that the anarcho-capitalist individuals who are bounded together by the mean of excluding themselves from areas where a state is present because of the legality of initiation of force (that is everyone who is in the anarchic are has migrated there in order to get away from area of coercion) and by the mean of making the of initiation of force illegitimate not only in the anarchic area and against each other but also against individuals who are outside the boundaries of the private property of the individuals whose land borders on a land that is governed by a state.(that is individuals whose current bodily presence is on a land where government exists).
all this means that if it truly is an anarcho-capitalistic area the individuals living in it will never unite in initiating violence.
second of all, no one has said that if you are an anarcho-capitalist you should definitely move to this existing anarchic area, and that if nevertheless a lot of individuals do as a result there will be no living space and they should/will attack the residents of neighbour areas.(this is my first point)
first of all, “anarchic area to wage war” means that all the people who are living in the specific geographical area where no state exists are voluntarily willing to contribute to a collective act of aggression against people who do not live in this area.
Sure, but due to the division of labor that might become less straightforward. The way I’d imagine it rolling: PDAs figure the most cost-effective way to have the neighboring state vacate some area (perhaps simply purchasing it? Funding the bombing of government facilities? Guerrilla hits on politicians? Massive purchase and immediate sale of bonds?), and everyone else either looks the other way or discontinues his policy. If some PDAs refuse to join this ‘crusade’, they’d be willing to overlook the massive surplus to be had by selling the newly acquired land at the sky-high prices in the anarchic commonwealth. That would be a big competitive disadvantage.
this means that the anarcho-capitalist individuals who are bounded together by the mean of excluding themselves from areas where a state is present because of the legality of initiation of force (that is everyone who is in the anarchic are has migrated there in order to get away from area of coercion) and by the mean of making the of initiation of force illegitimate not only in the anarchic area and against each other but also against individuals who are outside the boundaries of the private property of the individuals whose land borders on a land that is governed by a state.(that is individuals whose current bodily presence is on a land where government exists).
Or perhaps they just moved in because quality of life was higher? Ultimately, we expect anarchy to turn out to be more pleasant to live in, otherwise there’d be little hope of it ever succeeding. Even those who joined ‘merely’ out of ideological concerns, will have to weight that against the increased productivity (and lower rents) to be had when new areas come under anarchy. Every man has a price. When that price is right for most , war will become feasible.
all this means that if it truly is an anarcho-capitalistic area the individuals living in it will never unite in initiating violence.
Again, everyone has e price. I doubt most would be willing to live in a Kowloon-style area extending for tens of miles in all directions and yet refuse to seek new lands.
second of all, no one has said that if you are an anarcho-capitalist you should definitely move to this existing anarchic area, and that if nevertheless a lot of individuals do as a result there will be no living space and they should/will attack the residents of neighbour areas
Not all anarchists will move in, as well as many non-anarchist will. If the quality of life is better, people will tend to move, ceteris paribus. The larger the differential, the more vigorous the movement. Even an enlightened minarchy as someone called Kowloon before attracted an insane concentration of people. Imagine a full-fledged anarcho-capitalist society.
The documentary was made in 1989, just before the walled city got axed, and the triads were doing nice and tight, exploiting security from the inhabitants. Such is reality
Alas, sometimes its cheaper to pay thugs off than to fight them. On the plus side, a larger area might have allowed for some rival gangs and thus for some competition.
@xarthaz
inhabitants were not forced to leave until 1991to 1992…
i wrote this
“no one has said that if you are an anarcho-capitalist you should definitely move to this existing anarchic area”
because A) those that are anarcho-capitalists - not all of them will move there solely because the area is anarcho-capitalistic. if it were so we would expect that every single one of them to move there, even if some of them actually are constantly ill because of the bad hygiene, small living space and other bad things.and B) I don’t believe that non-anarcho-capitalists will live there (such may migrate but if they stay and live they essentially become anarcho-capitalists), simply because if you value the help for the poor and old that the state “gives” than the anarcho-capitalistic lifestyle(or your standard of living under such conditions), then you will not migrate or you will live there temporarily and then migrate back to the state.
if a single PDA or a group of PDAs that operate in the anarchic area decide to initiate violence against residents occupying state governed land, then the PDA or the PDAs are committing a crime and not the anarchic area as a collective entity. if I live in this area and my PDA operates under the rule of non-initiation of violence, and it rightfully does not initiate such against my fellow anarcho-capitalists, and then decides to do so against other area’s residents I am not responsible for its action. the PDA itself is responsible for committing a crime according to the libertarian ethic. and do not see why would anyone come to the anarchic area where he knows that initiation of force is a crime, start a lawful business, and then start initiating force. why wouldn’t the creator of this PDA just purchase the state owned land without first moving to the anarchic area and creating a PDA?
and I do not see why the PDA will restrict itself from committing crimes to anarcho-capitalists too. since it is punishable in the anarcho-capitalist area for a crime no matter against whom it initiated force, as long as there is someone to claim it in front of a libertarian private arbitrator. the other thing is that if PDAs collect together to do something wrong to non-residents of the anarchic area in order to profit, why don’t they just create a state on their own and start coercing for a rent the residents of the anarchic area? All these questions show us that in order to arrive to a hypothetical conclusion about one of the many ways in which things could turn up we have to make too much assumptions. And all of this is being done for what - to show that PDAs can turn up against the very principles they were founded on. Well this seems to me the very debate like “won’t a PDA destroy all other PDAs and create a state” or “won’t the PDAs together create a state”.
Ultimately it depend on what pays. Will it pay for a PDA to initiate violence against citizens living under anarchy, which makes them as productive as possible under the circumstances? I hardly thing they could ‘milk’ more of them under a state than under anarchy, factoring in resistance costs and all such things.
With assets under state sovereignty. Now you gain by bringing those under anarchy. If it can be done peacefully, as in by purchase, fine. But I doubt that any government would be willing to sell sovereignty on any piece of land. Other methods wshort of violence also exist. But a gang of criminals (the state) withholding consent to sell will not stop a PDA from getting its.