You might want to present a summary of your analysis, so people can know whether it interests them enough to search your site for the appropriate podcasts and blog posts and listen to and read them all.
Thanks!
Thanks for the link!
Well yes, I agree, there has been a government but that is not the point. The question is what this government actually has been able to do. I mean, anyone can proclaim to be the ruler (reminds me of latest news from Kenya) but that doesn’t give you anything if noone lets you rule and disobeys your laws, especially if you don’t have any means to force them. In that sense the somalian case should be considered a failure.
What I’m looking forward to is to see whether the market can start to provide the necessary infrastructure, institutions etc. before anyone manages to turn it into a modern state.
Sure - the outlines of my main approach are here:
http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2004/12/stateless-society-examination-of.html
For how a free society prevents the reemergence of a govt:
http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2007/06/stateless-dictatorships-how-free.html
General FAQ Part 1:
http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2007/06/freedomain-radio-frequently-asked_03.html
General FAQ Part 2:
http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2007/06/freedomain-radio-faq-part-2.html
Enjoy! 
Thanks for providing the links.
For others: if I get around to reading them, I’ll post a summary of his position. If someone else reads (or has read) them, please feel free to post a summary. Thanks.
Sorry, but his arguments for anarchy are just like any other argument, very trivial arguments that a minarchist would even refute. The improvised arguments, IMO, are not well tought-out and made from thinking-out-loud.
For defence, he only mentions ‘army’, without navy, and other technologies. Armies are altruistic. Almost all of our soldiers in our army do not want to kill civilians. If they are allowed to kill civilians, then we would conquer the world in no time.
Our defence is highly INEFFICIENT, because it is public defence. He does not mention new technology to slaughter individuals made from competition in the free market. Native Americans died and are attacked because of advanced European technology. He does not mention remote-control fighters, remote controlled battleships, remote controlled thermonuclear weapons, robotic slaughterers that would arise CHEAPLY from our free market.
I know that minarchism is economically, logically and deontologically inconsistent
Geography is always open to monopoly, if force is involved. That’s because one cannot switch to another place on land if one monopoly corecively dominates and restricts the freedom to move. I’d go with a mutually agreed monopoly defence to prevent such circumstance from physical force (i.e. a state).
Since you are using Hong Kong as your “proof” of minarchism, how about this:
An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West
Right, so you’re not so much interested in debating as just stating that the supplied articles are wrong, without providing any factual or logical corrections.
I would describe anarchy as a society where no single individual or entity has a monopoly on offensive force; nothing more, nothing less. In an essentially homogenous society, this works fine: the American frontier, medieval Iceland, early medieval Europe, etc. In a pluralistic society, anarchy tends to collapse into tribal warfare: the Rio slums, post-
Saddam Iraq, Somalia, etc.
Since people and capital don’t like chaos, they coalesce into more or less homogenous communities with uniform legal codes. This is why the anarchist, to be true to his creed, must be a permanent revolutionary against organic society like his ideological cousins the Marxists.
Also, human nature and hence, social organization, is inescapably hierarchical.
Those people are acting on the assumption that in the near future a monoply on violence will form. You are witnesses the birth of government, not the death of it.
I really don’t understand this monocentric attitude, spread by the likes of Hoppe. I take the exact opposite view: an anarchy is by its very nature a pluralistic society. Statism is political homogeny, while anarchy is political pluralism in its most extreme form. A lack of monopoly inherently has pluralist implications. In my mind, decentralization essentially equals pluralism. A homogenous society is more monocentric. A purely homogenous society is impossible to sustain in a dynamic world in which people migrate, interbreed and have incentives to associate and trade with whomever can benefit them (of any social group). Self-interest knows no social group (I.E. I could really care less if the people I deal with are from a different race or religion then me, as long as I benefit from them).
In freedom of association, the results of people’s choices will be a mixed bag. In freedom of association, there is nothing you can do to stop people on the margin from beginning to “pluralize” on your attempt to keep a homogenous society (I.E. some dudes are going to keep inviting Pablos and Yusefs into your neighborhood, hiring them and directly trading with them). Over time, your homogenous society will be broken up by people persueing their actual self-interest and this will intensify. It would be counterproductive in the long term, especially economically, to try to keep your society entirely monocentric. There is no such thing as a sustainable ethnocentric society. On the contrary of your claims that multicultural societies inherently collapse, enthocentric societies are ultimately doomed to failure in the modern world if anything by the mere laws of economics, without the help of any government.
Well, your problem is that the only examples of peaceful, productive anarchies have been in homogenous settings. Contrast this with the modern Western superstate, where the entire government apparatus of public education and legalized force must be deployed to preserve its multicultural character. And wherever and whenever the centralized state’s power dissolves, then you see people return to the pre-state institution of Tribe faster than you can say blood is thicker than water.
I happen to agree that in the market, the only color is green (i.e., "money), but commercial activity is not the only sphere of human existence.
I do not see the Old West as anarchy, but instead a collection of competing small local single-issued states. These “voluntary” law assocations are actually territorial monpolies. Mining companies have to abide to the “voluntary” laws and regulations when settling in a territory. I cannot see this any different than a minarchist state with competing private defence monopolies on land. I see the Old West worse than minarchy, because territorial monopolistic laws regulate impose their laws on all of their people. Multiple competing states is not anarchy.
All of your examples are actually small minarchist states.
Yes, slavery is a result of “anarchy” in the Old West.
Hoppe believes that for a market anarchist society to last it must embrace a sort of cultural conservatism, according to my reading of him. He is not against pluralism, in fact he acknowledges that true multiculturalism can only arise in a decentralized order, as opposed to a monolithic centralized one in which there is forced association (and disassocation.)
Hoppe also sees organic society organizing itself in risk-sharing pools, and people naturally want to be grouped with similar risks.