Canard DuJour

I don't need to. Rights are social conventions. Rightness comes down to human moral intuition which tends to result in conflicting claims.


That would depend on my moral intuition on said matter which might conflict with yours. This can be resolved in one of two ways. Rule of the strongest individual or recourse to democratic consensus. For the latter to mean anything, it must be backed by force of numbers. It would be nice if we lived in a world where these conflicts did not occur and no force were necessary, but we do not.

Depends what constitues a "side" - individual might or force of numbers. It doesn't if individual might prevails. So you repeatedly assert.

You are simply equivocating individual might with force of numbers and I've no idea what "morally able" is supposed to mean.

Canard DuJour

I genuinely don't intend any insult, but there's no content here I can respond to here beyond bald claims of superior argument and name calling.

spamandham

Except that, market solutions have in fact spontaneously appeared in Mogadishu. It's not nearly as chaotic as it was right before the state collapsed.

I don't think I need to.[/QUOTE]

If your claim is that statelessness leads to chaos, and you wish to use Somalia as an example of that, then you need to demonstrate that the stateless Somalia is more chaotic than what it was before the fall of the Somali government. That's the only way to make an apples to apples comparison.

The sequence of events in Somalia is that chaos led to the collapse of the Somali government, not the other way around.

unrealist42

The previous government of Somalia was undermined by the competing interests of various players who proceeded to arm the various clans and promote warlords. This has been going on there, in one form or another for decades. Arms have been supplied to various parties in Somalia by the US, Russia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, France, Iraq, Iran, Kenya, South Africa, China, Sudan, Lybia, North Korea... pretty much everyone at one time or another.

There are enough small arms and ammunition in Somalia to persecute an all out war for 20 or 30 years before it is exhausted.

Bonniedundee

I know, it because your posts says nothing. I fucking sick of reply of them. It is a waste of time.

Bonniedundee

You realise you make no sense here and in most of the posts I've read?

Canard DuJour

No I don't. I'd need to demonstrate that if I were claiming that a Somali state mitigates chaos in Somalia. Somalia is cited in counter-Libertarian argument not to exemplify a quality of state but a deficiency of laissez faire. Market mechanisms unhindered by the state do not produce a prosperous market economy or civil society. A stable state is a necessary precondition with the requisite social cohesion generally requiring market intervention. That is not to say that any or every government guarantees stability. The relevant comparative study would be cross-cultural, though hardly necessary.