We have warlords now. And these warlords control armies of millions of people and nuclear weapons, and kill people all over the world.
We don't have warlords, in that sense, now. And those in control of the governments of the First World couldn't be called warlords anyway.
We don't have warlords, in that sense, now. And those in control of the governments of the First World couldn't be called warlords anyway.
I don't see why they couldn't. They extract tribute from their conquered peoples, are surrounded by bodyguards, and wage wars based on lies. Seems fairly warlordish to me.
The only difference between a petty thug with a gun, a small-time gang of crooks, a slave-owning plantation, a Mafia crime family, a warlord, a principality, and state / national / world governments is their size.
What stops warlords? .50 cal?
Seriously, if he has thugs who pick on you and your neighbors, you have the means to protect yourself.
Eventually (and I'm not saying you wouldn't die in the process) he won't have any bodyguards and he'll have to do the thugging himself. And then he'll bite one lead piece.
Why will this work? He can't afford to have a shoot first ask questions later policy if he wants to extract money from you next week and the week after. He'll have a vested interest in your continued survival. Whereas you can shoot any number of thugs from him, because you aren't trying to gain anything from him, you're just trying to keep what you've got.
Let's say the government collapses tomorrow.
What stops warlords from springing up? Neofeudal societies?
I don't think I've ever seen a good answer to this.
A warning: if I suddenly get mindless rants in this topic that do nothing to help the conversation they will be removed.
What stops warlords? .50 cal?
Seriously, if he has thugs who pick on you and your neighbors, you have the means to protect yourself.
Eventually (and I'm not saying you wouldn't die in the process) he won't have any bodyguards and he'll have to do the thugging himself. And then he'll bite one lead piece.
Why will this work? He can't afford to have a shoot first ask questions later policy if he wants to extract money from you next week and the week after. He'll have a vested interest in your continued survival. Whereas you can shoot any number of thugs from him, because you aren't trying to gain anything from him, you're just trying to keep what you've got.
I'm talking about actual warlords, like say those from the Middle Ages or (literally) from the Warlord Era of China in the early 20th century.
We don't have warlords, in that sense, now. And those in control of the governments of the First World couldn't be called warlords anyway.
What is the difference, or to put it another way, why couldn't First World governments be called warlords according to your definition?
Let's say the government collapses tomorrow.
What stops warlords from springing up? Neofeudal societies?
I don't think I've ever seen a good answer to this.
A warning: if I suddenly get mindless rants in this topic that do nothing to help the conversation they will be removed.
You. If this is something you do not wish to happen take action at the appropriate time. Better yet, become a warlord yourself and run things the way you want instead of being at the mercy of another. One could be a benevolent feudal lord.
If you have a question about how the "free market" (as in unregluated, unlimited) can handle something, the first thing to do is to do a search on http://mises.org/
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? - Robert P. Murphy
http://mises.org/daily/1855
"When dealing with the warlord objection, we need to keep our comparisons fair. It won’t do to compare society A, which is filled with evil, ignorant savages who live under anarchy, with society B, which is populated by enlightened, law-abiding citizens who live under limited government. The anarchist doesn't deny that life might be better in society B. What the anarchist does claim is that, for any given population, the imposition of a coercive government will make things worse. The absence of a State is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to achieve the free society."
First you have to kill all of the evil, ignorant savages. Then you eat cake.
Sounds about as utopian as Marxism.
By that I mean: it's romantic bullshit that completely ignores real life.
Sounds about as utopian as Marxism.
By that I mean: it's romantic bullshit that completely ignores real life.
Then either you didn't read it, or logic makes no impression.
Marxism depended upon people _changing_. Simple liberty takes into account how people _are_.
It seems to imply that there are people who won't band up and turn against other people. Which - as Humungus has already pointed out - is sort of what happened in a place like Somalia when the government collapsed there and, as I have pointed out, isn't what happened when the Western Roman Empire or the Chinese Empire collapsed.
It seems to imply that there are people who won't band up and turn against other people. Which - as Humungus has already pointed out - is sort of what happened in a place like Somalia when the government collapsed there and, as I have pointed out, isn't what happened when the Western Roman Empire or the Chinese Empire collapsed.
I meant the entire article, not just paragraph two.
Nobody wants to touch my personal nukes idea with a 10 ft. pole?
You could be like Robin Williams in The Secret Agent and carry it around on you at all times wired to a dead man switch through your coat sleeve.
Still seems like a bad idea.
Humans are spiteful, vainglorious, and greedy. To presume that a "stateless" society would work in a free-market paradise is to presume that the "stateless" society would work under the worker's paradise.
I'm talking about actual warlords, like say those from the Middle Ages or (literally) from the Warlord Era of China in the early 20th century.
We don't have warlords, in that sense, now. And those in control of the governments of the First World couldn't be called warlords anyway.
What is the difference, or to put it another way, why couldn't First World governments be called warlords according to your definition?
Already said above. First World governments generally have a civil authority that can be appealed to.
For claims against the warlord?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunityQuoteGenerally speaking it is the doctrine that the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution; hence the saying, the king (or queen) can do no wrong.
I'm talking about actual warlords, like say those from the Middle Ages or (literally) from the Warlord Era of China in the early 20th century.
We don't have warlords, in that sense, now. And those in control of the governments of the First World couldn't be called warlords anyway.
What is the difference, or to put it another way, why couldn't First World governments be called warlords according to your definition?
Already said above. First World governments generally have a civil authority that can be appealed to.
For claims against the warlord?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunityQuoteGenerally speaking it is the doctrine that the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution; hence the saying, the king (or queen) can do no wrong.
There's no god damn King in America.
But there is the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
What you're doing is completely ignoring that conditions "here" with a powerful state might very well be better by any objective measure than "there" without a state. That's the only reason you can use the term "free-market paradise".
I'm talking about actual warlords, like say those from the Middle Ages or (literally) from the Warlord Era of China in the early 20th century.
We don't have warlords, in that sense, now. And those in control of the governments of the First World couldn't be called warlords anyway.
What is the difference, or to put it another way, why couldn't First World governments be called warlords according to your definition?
Already said above. First World governments generally have a civil authority that can be appealed to.
For claims against the warlord?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunityQuoteGenerally speaking it is the doctrine that the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution; hence the saying, the king (or queen) can do no wrong.
There's no god damn King in America.
But there is the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
In the USA sovereign immunity only applies to the individual states, and not to the federal government, and not to individual people.
No, there are exceptions to sovereign immunity, but as a general rule the Fed Gov (like the states) is immune from claims and so are all its agents.
Pretend that there is no official government. Now choose your government:
1) The Mafia
2) A Mad Maxx-style industrial complex
3) Waterworld-style pirate conglomerates
4) Sons of Anarchy-style biker gangs
5) Deadwood-style saloon/whorehouse owners
6) The Taliban
7) etc.
The first thing that occurs to me, personally, is that none of these are particularly female-friendly.
It still doesn't make the current government of the USA a warlord or warlord-esque state.
Once the State starts sticking people's heads on pikes, then I'll say it is.
The USA is a first world country that kills people. The court decisions upholding the death penalty even admit that the death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent for the rest of the people who might be considering the doing the same thing that the dead person did.
I'm just trying to figure out what exactly it is that differentiates a warlord state from a country like america.
Genghis had a civil administration.
Genghis had a civil administration.
America can't be compared in any way to the Mongol Hordes.
That is why you live in the middle of nowhere.
Whever, Nostradamus.That is why you live in the middle of nowhere.
the mad maxxers & sons will find you
and take yer shit
after they disembowel you, or make you their bitch
Genghis had a civil administration.
America can't be compared in any way to the Mongol Hordes.
They (Mongols) conquered much of the known world. They allowed freedom of religion. They protected the trade routes. They upheld contracts through rule of law. All you had to do was submit, not talk bad about your overseers, and pay your tribute. They had superior military tactics, and the strongest military in the world.
The question in the topic is a little different from the question in the post. Government is an idea, and will not disappear overnight.
In a society without government, people would stop warlords.
What is so magical about government that private people seeking a profit can't solve the problem?
The question in the topic is a little different from the question in the post. Government is an idea, and will not disappear overnight.
In a society without government, people would stop warlords.
What is so magical about government that private people seeking a profit can't solve the problem?
But if that happens, what differentiates bands of people from a government? Because then it would be the same thing.
But if that happens, what differentiates bands of people from a government? Because then it would be the same thing.
No, it's not.
Government is the institution with the monopoly on the "legitimate" initiation of force.
It can change the rules at will and make everyone subject to them, only with government can the policy "ignorance of the law is no defense", every private organization must get voluntary agreement before subjecting someone to their rules or the contract is void.
What we have now is a gang that uses extortion, kidnapping and murder at will to enforce its edicts. The rationalization is that "it would be worse without the gang", but history shows that this is absolutely untrue.
If these people banded together they would think of themselves as having the "legitimate" monopoly on force.
Probably worse, since a government today likes to think that it has obligations to its people, such as roads, schools, firefighters, etc.
A Vigilance Committee, incidentally, is exactly what I would consider to be a proto-warlord state.
It you make your prediction into a quatrain, maybe I would believe you.
But if that happens, what differentiates bands of people from a government? Because then it would be the same thing.
No, it's not.
Government is the institution with the monopoly on the "legitimate" initiation of force.
It can change the rules at will and make everyone subject to them, only with government can the policy "ignorance of the law is no defense", every private organization must get voluntary agreement before subjecting someone to their rules or the contract is void.
What we have now is a gang that uses extortion, kidnapping and murder at will to enforce its edicts. The rationalization is that "it would be worse without the gang", but history shows that this is absolutely untrue.
If these people banded together they would think of themselves as having the "legitimate" monopoly on force. Then they would be the same as what you perceive to be a government. Probably worse, since a government today likes to think that it has obligations to its people, such as roads, schools, firefighters, etc.
A Vigilance Committee, incidentally, is exactly what I would consider to be a proto-warlord state.
QuoteA Vigilance Committee, incidentally, is exactly what I would consider to be a proto-warlord state.
"Proto"? Care to elaborate, then, why a "neighborhood watch" isn't a proto-warlord condition too?
Neighborhood watches don't string people up if they think they're guilty of something without a trial.
what differentiates bands of people from a government?
Neighborhood watches don't string people up if they think they're guilty of something without a trial.
Neighborhood watches don't string people up if they think they're guilty of something without a trial.
Governments do.
A Vigilance Committee, incidentally, is exactly what I would consider to be a proto-warlord state.
Late 17th and early 18th century London?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief-takerNeighborhood watches don't string people up if they think they're guilty of something without a trial.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but based on your posts here it appears that some sort of due process is all that is required in order for any large society to escape "warlord" status. What quality distinguishes legitimate systems of redress from illegitimate systems, perhaps like those that might have existed in the "warlord" society of Genghis Khan's time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
(1) The only difference between a petty thug with a gun, a small-time gang of crooks, a slave-owning plantation, a Mafia crime family, a warlord, a principality, and state / national / world governments is their size. The former, if not met with proper resistance, eventually find it in their interest to grow into the latter, "democracy theater" and all.
(2) This has been debated endlessly on a number of forums (ex) with no conclusive theories on why an upstart warlord would be able to brainwash people more effectively than Mommy Government brainwashes them today, thus every warlord will be overwhelmed by billions of people who don't want to be its slaves. Absence of government can only come about through wide-spread acceptance of the Non-Aggression Principle, which also means wide-spread resistance to new threats to one's life, liberty, and property. If we can resist a trillion dollar nuclear monopoly on force whose claims of "divine right" to power trace back to antiquity, then resisting some crackpot Dr. Evil wannabe would be a piece of cake!
(3) The government should not collapse 100% in one day (or one decade), nor should we want it to. The crisis after the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe perfectly demonstrates that people (and thus markets) need time to adjust to greater amounts of liberty. What we need is gradual progression toward ever-stricter Minarchism, with ever-more intergovernmental competition, until enclaves of Anarcho-Capitalism can finally be allowed to emerge and grow organically on the basis of competitive advantage.
No. The fact that they all have in common something bad, something you object to, does not make them the same. [...]
Again, if you honestly can't tell that our society is fundamentally different from that of the Mongol Horde (which, incidentally WAS known for its brutality, and did not generally leave "well enough alone" to those who would toe the line), we cannot converse.
Again, if you honestly can't tell that our society is fundamentally different from that of the Mongol Horde (which, incidentally WAS known for its brutality, and did not generally leave "well enough alone" to those who would toe the line), we cannot converse.
Then we cannot converse.
I see no difference what so ever between this gang of self-justified murders and that gang of self-justified murderers.
Both live by taking what they want from peaceful people against their will. Both use overwhelming violence against anyone who has the balls to defend themselves in any way against their predation.
Again, if you honestly cannot grasp that the sheen of legitimacy is all that protects the few predators from having the vast majority of peaceful people throw them off, then we cannot converse.
Again, if you honestly can't tell that our society is fundamentally different from that of the Mongol Horde (which, incidentally WAS known for its brutality, and did not generally leave "well enough alone" to those who would toe the line), we cannot converse.
Then we cannot converse.
I see no difference what so ever between this gang of self-justified murders and that gang of self-justified murderers.
Both live by taking what they want from peaceful people against their will. Both use overwhelming violence against anyone who has the balls to defend themselves in any way against their predation.
Again, if you honestly cannot grasp that the sheen of legitimacy is all that protects the few predators from having the vast majority of peaceful people throw them off, then we cannot converse.
So, lemme get this straight. Since you lump every government system, and nonsystem together they are all equally invalid. As such, there is no fundamental difference between Ancient Mongolia, East Germany, and Revolution era America.
Dude, didn't you know that Congo is the same as the US? The governments are both governments, they are the same!Again, if you honestly can't tell that our society is fundamentally different from that of the Mongol Horde (which, incidentally WAS known for its brutality, and did not generally leave "well enough alone" to those who would toe the line), we cannot converse.
Then we cannot converse.
I see no difference what so ever between this gang of self-justified murders and that gang of self-justified murderers.
Both live by taking what they want from peaceful people against their will. Both use overwhelming violence against anyone who has the balls to defend themselves in any way against their predation.
Again, if you honestly cannot grasp that the sheen of legitimacy is all that protects the few predators from having the vast majority of peaceful people throw them off, then we cannot converse.
So, lemme get this straight. Since you lump every government system, and nonsystem together they are all equally invalid. As such, there is no fundamental difference between Ancient Mongolia, East Germany, and Revolution era America.
This, they are all different societies and as such have different sorts of governments.
f you consider the government of Cuba and the government of, say, Greenland to be the same you may as well move to Cuba; at least it's warm there.
Dude, didn't you know that Congo is the same as the US? The governments are both governments, they are the same!
So, lemme get this straight. Since you lump every government system, and nonsystem together they are all equally invalid. As such, there is no fundamental difference between Ancient Mongolia, East Germany, and Revolution era America.
This, they are all different societies and as such have different sorts of governments.
I see no difference what so ever between this gang of self-justified murders and that gang of self-justified murderers.
Both live by taking what they want from peaceful people against their will. Both use overwhelming violence against anyone who has the balls to defend themselves in any way against their predation.
And if you want to stop paying taxes, it's very simple: stop using the government's coin.
Governments in Europe seem to have done a very good job with redistributing wealth anyhow, and I'd feel more comfortable living in say, Denmark and having a social safety net and living in America hanging by a thread.
Which sorts of gets us sort of far away from the initial point of this thread, but eh.
Something seems to be working in the "socialist" countries. They have much higher GDPs than the United States does.
Human rights in the two countries were fundamentally different, and that is one way how you can tell if a government is, indeed, a warlord state: by the way it treats the majority of its citizens.
Except that isn't the same and the two countries' systems of law do not work in the same way.
Believe me, I'd emigrate to Denmark if I could.
Except that isn't the same and the two countries' systems of law do not work in the same way.
Believe me, I'd emigrate to Denmark if I could.
Really? Why Denmark, of all places? I mean, it's pretty and the people are nice, but it's one of the most expensive places in the world to live and all of the shops are shut on Sunday.
Something seems to be working in the "socialist" countries. |
They have much higher GDPs than the United States does.
No, they don't! (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=28798.msg536019#msg536019)
Not even close.
If I actually get something tangible out of paying taxes then I see that as a good thing.
Then again, there's also the famous case of Ingmar Bergman, who was taxed on 110% of his income.
So, lemme get this straight. Since you lump every government system, and nonsystem together they are all equally invalid. As such, there is no fundamental difference between Ancient Mongolia, East Germany, and Revolution era America.
Interesting the things that are conveniently added to what I've said to make my point easy to dismiss.
What makes a "non-government system"? Lack of legitimacy to initiate force. I most certainly did not lump those things together at all.
Without the sheen of legitimacy, a "warlord" cannot survive. No gang can be bigger than the group it oppresses. They rely upon fear of overwhelming violent repercussion to keep the masses in line.
Every time the sheen of legitimacy falls away, the government falls away. Look at the Soviet Union, East Germany, Poland. Perfect recent examples. No bigger gang came in and overthrew the previous gang, the existing government merely lost the support of its people.
Sadly, just as with the break-away English colonies in North America, the people remained complacent that there had to be an institution with the monopoly on the legitimate initiation of force. So today Putin rules just as every Czar did before regardless of what "system" they called it.This, they are all different societies and as such have different sorts of governments.
I might as well quote myself again, since it seems that few people read what I write the first time:I see no difference what so ever between this gang of self-justified murders and that gang of self-justified murderers.
Both live by taking what they want from peaceful people against their will. Both use overwhelming violence against anyone who has the balls to defend themselves in any way against their predation.
Society is NOT government. Governments are the same, societies differ.
Oh, sure, the styles have different names, "President" rather than "Prime Minister", "Emperor" instead of "King", but all get their power the same way: They extract their sustenance through force, and keep that supply of wealth flowing through the threat of overwhelming violence.
So if it matters to you what you call your master, you are welcome to, how was it put, "move to Cuba".
I don't give a shit what label is sewn into the Velvet Glove so long as the Iron Fist remains.
If I actually get something tangible out of paying taxes then I see that as a good thing.
The problem with taxes being that, like it or not, they take it anyway.
How is the system legitimate in the first place?
... except that under normal parliamentary democracy you can vote for or against tax initiatives. |
A nation can't vote its way into freedom even if the majority of its citizens were capable of independent thought and were intelligent enough to understand free market economics (very unlikely given who controls education), because of the way the voting process is structured. Pro-government interests are always united, anti-government interests are always divided. Shrinking the government takes time, and while that's happening the socialists will continue to steal your money and use it to brainwash the mob to hate you. And if their power is really threatened, they can just upload some kiddy porn on your laptop and your life is over. Or pull off another 9/11.
How is the system legitimate in the first place?It is legitimate because a group of people a long time ago got together and said that it was so. No other reason.
How is the system legitimate in the first place?It is legitimate because a group of people a long time ago got together and said that it was so. No other reason.
Why do you think that is a good enough reason?
Why not the alternative of voluntary interaction?
Government has been shown not to work.
Government, the idea, is the problem. Remove the institution without the idea being replaced by better voluntary ones, and of course bad things will result. It is not reasonable to use those instances as examples against voluntaryism.
Because that has been shown not to work.
Unless you consider Somalia to be paradise?
Until I find good evidence that people are able to govern themselves in an anarchic society (which has been done in the past and which has largely failed, miserably) . . .
Because that has been shown not to work.
It's worked very well.
http://mises.org/daily/1865
Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690QuoteUnless you consider Somalia to be paradise?
The fighting in Somalia has been because of the governments being forced upon it from the outside by the UN and USA.
Various factions, in danger of not being the ones in power, try to grab the power first.
When left alone, Somalia does quite well. You should do some research some time.
Don't bring up the piracy problem, because that's simply proof that legally disarming international shipping does the same thing that forcing people to be disarmed always does: Enables Criminals Who Disobey The Law.QuoteUntil I find good evidence that people are able to govern themselves in an anarchic society (which has been done in the past and which has largely failed, miserably) . . .
One of the reasons that it's very hard to talk to you about this is that you seem to be reading different history books than everyone else.
Your rationalizations, and especially this last sentence, do nothing but justify totalitarian government because people are obviously unable to govern themselves to your satisfaction.
Because that has been shown not to work.
It's worked very well.
http://mises.org/daily/1865
Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690QuoteUnless you consider Somalia to be paradise?
The fighting in Somalia has been because of the governments being forced upon it from the outside by the UN and USA.
Various factions, in danger of not being the ones in power, try to grab the power first.
When left alone, Somalia does quite well. You should do some research some time.
Don't bring up the piracy problem, because that's simply proof that legally disarming international shipping does the same thing that forcing people to be disarmed always does: Enables Criminals Who Disobey The Law.QuoteUntil I find good evidence that people are able to govern themselves in an anarchic society (which has been done in the past and which has largely failed, miserably) . . .
One of the reasons that it's very hard to talk to you about this is that you seem to be reading different history books than everyone else.
Your rationalizations, and especially this last sentence, do nothing but justify totalitarian government because people are obviously unable to govern themselves to your satisfaction.
Ten thousand people spread across an area the size of Pennsylvania (it was probably smaller then) doesn't quite count;
Medieval attempts at what we would call anarchism (socialism?) usually ended up in everyone starving and being conquered by the "civil" authorities.
If the "fighting" in Somalia has to do with governments, what say you to the government in Somaliland? That is a stable government that arose after the collapse of the Somalian government.
Also, you seem to think that all governments are totalitarian when some governments simply aren't.
You cry about "taxes" being taken from you by guns, when really you are free to move to a different country. Why do you stay in a country you don't like (presuming you have the freedom to leave)?
are you for fucking real?
somalia's problems are to be blamed on the u.n./u.s.?
you sound like al-fucking-sharpton
niggas over there got far bigger problems than ANY outside influence could inflict upon them.
shallow gene pool being at the top of the list.
but, go ahead....blame ''whitey'' for that, too
piracy?
why isn't there a piracy problem near, say, iceland?
unregulated, uneducated,ungoverned, left -to-their-own-devices, negroes w/ guns & boats.
there's your ''anarchistic'' reality.
most can't handle it
You're right, there are differences between governments. Some will just take the tribute. Others will take your life, too. Some choice.
Why are you so obsessed with money?
You do live in a society, you know. You don't live by yourself; the government currently builds the roads, fights fires, and does do a lot of good public services with *gasp* tax money. Do you actually care about your fellow man, or do you only care about your wallet?
Also, here in the real world, anarchic societies do devolve into a "bash you before I get bashed" society. Anarchism doesn't work.
Why don't you go to Somalia? It is, sad to say, *the* prime example of an anarcho-libertarian state in action. (I seriously mean that as a question.)
As for Iceland, I find it very interesting that when piracy did occur in Iceland, it had to do with the fact that there wasn't any sort of a navy defending it. (English and Barbary state pirates used to literally raid the island for goods and slaves.)
Also, in addition, the ends always justify the means., if the ends are good enough to justify them. If I could save the world by killing my child, I'd probably end up doing it. (Not like I'm likely to have children, ever.)
I would wonder how a warlord could establish himself in a anarchist America. while one well armed intelligent person could easily defend himself on his own property, he would have problems trying to lay siege or concour. A crime family would have problems establishing themselves in the absence of prohibition. What would be the motivation for henchmen? how would he hire them? More to the point, why should I fear them? In a free open society one would really have something to fight for- ones self and ones family. I would hate to try and be a warlord trying to concour a free and armed people.
A short answer you and I.
Power over what? People are better informed and more resourceful these days. I grew up in a rural area where trying to lay any sort of siege would be suicide, so I am a little dumb about cities. But I remember the LA riots (Rodney King) and I gained a healthy respect for a mob, and I gained a respect for the power of a brave individual in the same incident when the (black) truck driver came to Reginald Dennie's rescue. In a free society ,with so good communication as we now have, being a warlord would be a short exciting career.
Maybe that is why most of the "warlords"(our definition) avoid a frontal assault and rely on abstact fears to gain their power over large groups.Attila the Hun didn't have to contend with modern communications and chemistry.
The telegraph changed everything, but now, with the internet, "warlords" in the OP's narrow sense of the word wouldn't stand a chance.
Maybe that is why most of the "warlords"(our definition) avoid a frontal assault and rely on abstact fears to gain their power over large groups.Attila the Hun didn't have to contend with modern communications and chemistry.
The telegraph changed everything, but now, with the internet, "warlords" in the OP's narrow sense of the word wouldn't stand a chance.
Against a large group of independent individuals with something real to defend? I wouldn't bet on it.
Mother: "oh my god! they are coming at us with guns! Wheres your father?"
son: "I donno ma saw, him him headin for that there bottle neck in the woods there."
Mother: "He take his'n boom stick?"
son: "Na... jes en bucket o' nails and some of them T.N.T. sticks from the barn."
Attila the Hun didn't have to contend with modern communications and chemistry.
None of the warlords you mention were attacking free societies that didn't wish them harm. A warlord needs a unifying agent of some sort. I don't think "Hey, those people don't want to be ruled by anyone lets get 'em!" would get the most efficient loyal army going.Maybe that is why most of the "warlords"(our definition) avoid a frontal assault and rely on abstact fears to gain their power over large groups.Attila the Hun didn't have to contend with modern communications and chemistry.
The telegraph changed everything, but now, with the internet, "warlords" in the OP's narrow sense of the word wouldn't stand a chance.
Also, what makes you think that the modern communications we have now will still work in a possible age of constant warfare?
I hate to keep bringing it up, but Somalia has the Internet, and Somalia also has one of the fastest-growing amount of people with cell phones in sub-Saharan Africa, and it has what's going on there.Against a large group of independent individuals with something real to defend? I wouldn't bet on it.
Mother: "oh my god! they are coming at us with guns! Wheres your father?"
son: "I donno ma saw, him him headin for that there bottle neck in the woods there."
Mother: "He take his'n boom stick?"
son: "Na... jes en bucket o' nails and some of them T.N.T. sticks from the barn."
Attila the Hun didn't have to contend with modern communications and chemistry.
The Bosniak Serbs *had* modern communications and chemistry. So did (do?) the Tamil Tigers.
None of the warlords you mention were attacking free societies that didn't wish them harm. A warlord needs a unifying agent of some sort. I don't think "Hey, those people don't want to be ruled by anyone lets get 'em!" would get the most efficient loyal army going.Maybe that is why most of the "warlords"(our definition) avoid a frontal assault and rely on abstact fears to gain their power over large groups.Attila the Hun didn't have to contend with modern communications and chemistry.
The telegraph changed everything, but now, with the internet, "warlords" in the OP's narrow sense of the word wouldn't stand a chance.
Also, what makes you think that the modern communications we have now will still work in a possible age of constant warfare?
I hate to keep bringing it up, but Somalia has the Internet, and Somalia also has one of the fastest-growing amount of people with cell phones in sub-Saharan Africa, and it has what's going on there.Against a large group of independent individuals with something real to defend? I wouldn't bet on it.
Mother: "oh my god! they are coming at us with guns! Wheres your father?"
son: "I donno ma saw, him him headin for that there bottle neck in the woods there."
Mother: "He take his'n boom stick?"
son: "Na... jes en bucket o' nails and some of them T.N.T. sticks from the barn."
Attila the Hun didn't have to contend with modern communications and chemistry.
The Bosniak Serbs *had* modern communications and chemistry. So did (do?) the Tamil Tigers.
You mean those pirates who were fought off with fire hoses? I didn't classify them as warlords but I guess they qualify. My point so far in this thread has been on warlords taking over territory from the citizens who claim its ownership. I ignorantly have no real fear of this sort of criminal I admit, though I am terrified of power happy enforcers of the state.
The Serbs were terrified of living in a Muslim state, that was their unifying agent.
You mean those pirates who were fought off with fire hoses? I didn't classify them as warlords but I guess they qualify. My point so far in this thread has been on warlords taking over territory from the citizens who claim its ownership. I ignorantly have no real fear of this sort of criminal I admit, though I am terrified of power happy enforcers of the state.
The Serbs were terrified of living in a Muslim state, that was their unifying agent.
Ah come on, you never dreamed of being a pirate- aaarg. I called them people with nothing to lose. I am sure the leadership they had wasn't really all that nice to them either. Cooler to die quickly in a fight then starve to death.You mean those pirates who were fought off with fire hoses? I didn't classify them as warlords but I guess they qualify. My point so far in this thread has been on warlords taking over territory from the citizens who claim its ownership. I ignorantly have no real fear of this sort of criminal I admit, though I am terrified of power happy enforcers of the state.
The Serbs were terrified of living in a Muslim state, that was their unifying agent.
i particularly liked the pirates that got their brains turned into hash by navy seals...
that fucking rocked.
and, your ''classification'' process, vis-a-vis somalian warlord/pirates, is akin to my calling a tomato a ''toh-mah-toe''
don't be a douche about it.
niggas running around on land or floating around in the ocean w/ guns & no rules or laws = warlords
(i personally call 'em niggas runnin around w/ guns, but that's just me)
I am sure the leadership they had wasn't really all that nice to them either. Cooler to die quickly in a fight then starve to death.
I am sure the leadership they had wasn't really all that nice to them either. Cooler to die quickly in a fight then starve to death.
get a fucking job.
there aren't any jobs in somalia.
All true. Everything is swell now down there thanks to Bill Clinton.You mean those pirates who were fought off with fire hoses? I didn't classify them as warlords but I guess they qualify. My point so far in this thread has been on warlords taking over territory from the citizens who claim its ownership. I ignorantly have no real fear of this sort of criminal I admit, though I am terrified of power happy enforcers of the state.
The Serbs were terrified of living in a Muslim state, that was their unifying agent.
So terrified they aggressed against them and committed mass gangrape on their women . . . in other words, acting exactly like warlords would.
yeah, well ,the owners of the huge, combustible oil tankers get a wee skittish when you mention firearms + their boats...You know about non warships not having weapons, right?
it's kindof a ''no-no''
oh, hey, one got taken last week by somaliwarlordspirates
niggas wif guns on a raft
you say ''toe-may-toe''
All true. Everything is swell now down there thanks to Bill Clinton.You mean those pirates who were fought off with fire hoses? I didn't classify them as warlords but I guess they qualify. My point so far in this thread has been on warlords taking over territory from the citizens who claim its ownership. I ignorantly have no real fear of this sort of criminal I admit, though I am terrified of power happy enforcers of the state.
The Serbs were terrified of living in a Muslim state, that was their unifying agent.
So terrified they aggressed against them and committed mass gangrape on their women . . . in other words, acting exactly like warlords would.
I like to think- that a people, who peacefully overthrew the state because it was obsolete, would not be inclined to victimize non aggressors. I also believe such a people would be good at defending themselves against whatever enemy whom might egress against them.
Warlords that exist in statist shitholes enjoy a passive enabling of the local populace.
All true. Everything is swell now down there thanks to Bill Clinton.You mean those pirates who were fought off with fire hoses? I didn't classify them as warlords but I guess they qualify. My point so far in this thread has been on warlords taking over territory from the citizens who claim its ownership. I ignorantly have no real fear of this sort of criminal I admit, though I am terrified of power happy enforcers of the state.
The Serbs were terrified of living in a Muslim state, that was their unifying agent.
So terrified they aggressed against them and committed mass gangrape on their women . . . in other words, acting exactly like warlords would.
I like to think- that a people, who peacefully overthrew the state because it was obsolete, would not be inclined to victimize non aggressors. I also believe such a people would be good at defending themselves against whatever enemy whom might egress against them.
Warlords that exist in statist shitholes enjoy a passive enabling of the local populace.
You have a very romantic and idealized view of human nature.
You will be first against the wall when anarchy does happen.
Governments have put me against the wall a bunch of times so far so I'll take my chances.
But, but, but, we have a system!QuoteYesterday a settlement ended Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, a Supreme Court case that raised the question of when prosecutors can be held personally liable for misconduct they commit while accumulating evidence against a defendant. Terry Harrington and Curtis W. McGhee, who served 25 years for the 1978 murder of a retired police officer before being released, sued Dave Richter and Joseph Hrvol, the Pottawattamie County, Iowa, prosecutors who sent them to prison, accusing them of fabricating evidence, coercing witnesses, and hiding exculpatory evidence. The issue before the Court, which heard the case in November, was whether Richter and Hrvol committed these abuses in their roles as prosecutors, in which case longstanding precedent would make them immune from lawsuits, or in their roles as investigators, in which case they could be held personally liable. The $12 million settlement by the prosecutors and the county suggests they feared the Court would reach the latter conclusion.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/05/12-million-prevents-a-supreme
Warlords, dude.
There is one vast error in this entire thread.
A government is not a State.
Governance is a (somewhat archaic) method of organisation.
Bureaucracy has broken down a lot in our personal and economic lives, the State is the only existing functionality of governance on a large scale these days.
However it is still possible to govern an area without resorting to the use of a state. This is referred to as Panarchy, and is actually what many anarchists want, not the dissolution of society as many people seem to believe.
Nothing you have said is in disagreement with what I have said.
And control is a means of organizing things.
This is a stupid argument.
Yet government (which we agree is a from of both organization and control) uses governance to achieve it's ends.