The problem I have with Somalia is the fact is they use coercion to appropriate other people’s property. Of course they are gonna protect their own property. The US government has no problem protecting its illegitimately acquired property. Does that make them upholders of property rights. This power is centralized under their leaders/warlords. If you break one of their subjective laws(sharia law) they can punish you even if you did not agree to their rules on your own property
If I homestead in Somalia there would be no expectations that others would recognize my property rights and if I wanted to defend myself I would be facing the overwhelming force of rights violators. Right to property is delegated to those who have the biggest armed tribe. You can probably come in with an army, homestead and build a fort from which I can build a voluntary society but that would be counterproductive and very expensive.
Its not because the people their are “dirty”. If they had any recognition of property rights other than their own I would move their. The fact is they don’t.
If anarchy is the freedom from coercive authority then Somalia is not anarchy because there is coercion and an authority behind that coercion whether it is the tribe leader, warlord or a band of thieves.
I’m saying, repeatedly, that animals know what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours: property. Three-year old humans know this as well. And if animals and three-year olds know it then, a fortiori, adult Somalians know it.
I do wonder though if Brits know it since, again, they’ve practically outlawed the right to defend one’s property.
so if i walk up to a a dog with some tasty meat in my hand and tell him, dont eat this, its mine. the meat willl stay in my hand if the dog is moral, and it will go into the dogs belyl if he has decided to disrespect my property?
I wonder what’s the argument here by others. Maybe the argument is not about natural property on the animalistic scale. I see animals conducting acts of natural property too. So maybe the argument is that Somalia would need to be aware of this animalistic natural property and see this in their mind not just act it in their genes. For if not in the mind, then what is in the mind? So they could realize the universality of this natural property, meaning, to honor non-aggression acts towards others that honor their non-aggression acts due to respect for each others natural property.
Yes, anarchy. Rights will have to be defended with might. Otherwise, we roll over for a state which promises to protect us. The problem is not that man acts violently, it’s that man will choose to kneel before he will stand for himself.
It’s not. Anarchy is defending yourself from coercive authority. It’s not where the bad people go away.
If you walk up to a dog with meat in your hand and wave it in front of his muzzle he’ll assume it’s being offered to him. If you leave it unguarded, then he’ll assume it’s his for the taking. Otherwise, he knows he’ll have to use force or surreptitious means or look at you endearingly. All those options will be weighed.
Of course he does. Ever seen a dog marking territory? Burying a bone? Barking at someone coming in the yard?
I think you’re demonstrating more of the British imperialist ideology. The unspoken premise of your argument is that property rights are contingent upon a certain level of intellect, which the wogs with their AK-47’s and ignorance of John Locke just don’t have.
Correct. And the truth is, this whole situation of piracy and violence in Somalia is because the State won’t let anyone find out what the rules are. Where the clans are allowed to sort things out, things are as good as they can be in a generally low IQ population. The UN/World Bank/US et al. dangle promises of loans, weapons and aid, so various factions in Somalia fight for centralized authority. Nobody knows to what degree the shippers will be allowed to defend their ships without somebody suing or prosecuting them. And on and on.
Every wrongheaded and destructive government scheme in history stems from the delusion that ideology trumps biology. The division of labor, for example, arises from the biological fact that humans are unequal in intelligence and ability. Public education, by contrast, is based on the ideology of equality.
all of the animal responses you posit do not require and do not evidence understanding of or respect of property. you could equally argue about a RobotDog in the same way.
from this you get that the animals have concepts of property, talk about leap…
i think you are demonstrating collectivist traits by stereotyping me.
they either have sufficient human rationality or they dont. and i made no claim that they did not have it, only that they should use it, and they must in order to moral, and in order to conform to the libertarian ideal I would tend to think that they are as capable of it as any member of the Leninist vanguard may have been. I have not assumed that they have not the rational capacity.
So there is an objective standard that depends on the development of a species. Since you left out the part about reason, would you agree that this standard is displayed by the visible choices of economic actors in an emergent market place, in other words, that human action shapes what is the most preferable condition of society at any given time?
Human society is limited by the biological and physical laws of the universe. We can come up with perfectly good and seemingly moral reasons why men and women are equal. It doesn’t mean they are.
To profess that natural property is universal, whether one argues in the inclusion of animal or only from the strictly human species, the conclusion therefore is all people everywhere act in accord with natural property. And thus the Somalian’s whether they know it or not, they act in accord with natural property. That’s the universality that Natural Law advocates.
What the State does is pervert and corrupt these natural human acts with ideologies that have no connection to nature and therefore are criminal. It’s why the State makes no common sense.
I’m not trying to stab you in the back here, Byz. I don’t cling to philosophical dogmas. Does the biological reality of a given population express itself in the market choices of its individual members?
Of course it does. Go to a toy store and see what boys buy and what girls buy. Compare the IQ’s for the audience at a pro wrestling event with the IQ’s of the audience for an opera.
This site is not devoted only to value-free economics. Even if it were, the people interested in value free economics are interested in it because of ‘ideological’ reasons.
Your own positions are ideological. The only difference is that you don’t seem to understand that’s the case, or pretend not to in order to claim that your position is just “the laws of biology”. Either way, your position is bunk.