From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 8 Jan 93 10:36:01 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

matta@lclark.edu (Matt Alexander) writes:
> bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>>galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>>>
>>> Somalia's problem is not that there is no government.  The problem
>>> has been several governments fighting each other, with civillians
>>> caught in the crossfire.  If Somalia is an anarchy, why are there
>>> so many "warlords" controlling different parts of the country?
>>
>>        Because they saw an oppourtunity to become warlords and
>>did so. You seem to think that anarchy is only anarchy when the
>>actions of each individual remain inside a set of defined "rules".
>>ie. if everyone just went about their buisiness and tried to
>>co-exist with each other without resorting to threats and coertion,
>>that is anarchy. If someone recruits their own private army and
>>aquires "power" by using that army, that isn't anarchy.
>>
>>        I'm sorry Greg, but the second case is also anarchy. However
>>much you and I might wish for a system of peaceful co-existance,
>>where each individual has *complete* freedom of choice in running
>>their life, there are those who choose to ensure their own survival by
>>controlling and dominating other people around them. I, and I suspect
>>you as well, find this sort of survival "morally repulsive", but
>>that doesn't mean it's not anarchy.
>
>    Actually, I think that Greg has a point. Pure anarchy means no government.
> If the warlords use military force and power to control and enforce their
> respective authorities, are they not in fact feudal states?
>    On the other hand, even without organized clan governments, there would
> most likely still be violence and starvation. Anarchy in and of itself does
> not automatically create peace and happiness.

        While we all agree that a sustainable state of Anarchy requires
each individual to hold themselves accountable for the consequences of their
actions, we need to address circumstances where this "pure" ideal is not
upheld. As I stated, the action of one individual to recruit a "private
army" and then use that army for personal advancement is not a violation of
the basic Anarchist principal of each person acting as they see fit. Even
within the ideal of personal accountability there are two courses one can
follow. Knowing that an action will adversely interfere or harm someone
else, will a person exercise restraint and not go through with that action,
or go through with that action and surrender to the repercussions of that
action. In an Anarchist state, how would the general populace deal with a
"warlord" who has recruited a private army and does not hold themselves
accountable to the other people they are affecting? Would it be proper
for those being victimised to band together and use force to depose the
warlord?

In Somalia the people who are being victimised by the private armies have
been unable to "stand up for themselves" because of their abject poverty.


           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.