So, in a society completely without government, what stops warlords?

[alaric89]

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.

[Riddler]

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)

[TimeLady Victorious]

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.

[alaric89]

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)

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.
Anyway back on point. If the shipping boats could be armed, they wouldn't have to depend on Obama or Puten to "turn their brains to hash."
Without huge international navies, small power boats couldn't even start to take over a huge container ship.

[Riddler]

yeah, well ,the owners of the huge, combustible oil tankers get a wee skittish when you mention firearms + their boats...
it's kindof a ''no-no''
oh, hey, one got taken last week by somali warlords
pirates
niggas wif guns on a raft
you say ''toe-may-toe''

[Riddler]

 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.
or, as the late, great sam kinison pointed out (when responding to the omnipresent whiners-about-the-plight-of-starving-africans)
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P0q4o58pKwA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P0q4o58pKwA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[Riddler]

i literally fell out of the computer chair just now watching that

[TimeLady Victorious]

 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.

this is because no one wants to invest there. because it's a very unstable region.

somaliland, however, has a functioning government and is more stable than most of the states in east africa.

[Riddler]

there aren't any jobs in somalia.

niggas could open a slushy cart.
evebody love a muthafuckin slushy when it hot...

[alaric89]

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.

All true. Everything is swell now down there thanks to Bill Clinton.
 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.

[alaric89]

yeah, well ,the owners of the huge, combustible oil tankers get a wee skittish when you mention firearms + their boats...
it's kindof a ''no-no''
oh, hey, one got taken last week by somali warlords
pirates
niggas wif guns on a raft
you say ''toe-may-toe''

You know about non warships not having weapons, right?

[TimeLady Victorious]

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.

All true. Everything is swell now down there thanks to Bill Clinton.
 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.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Somalia is objectively better off without a government. If they had a government, if it was secular, or sharia law, either side would use it as a tool to reincite some ethnic cleansing.

[BonerJoe]

I think it's funny that so many anarchists think that you shouldn't be able to retaliate when someone initiates force against you. I'm like, how the fuck are you people ever going to have a chance at starting a society? Obviously you're not, you just love to debate.

[alaric89]

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.

All true. Everything is swell now down there thanks to Bill Clinton.
 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.

Guilty. I have more faith in regular folks without power or motivation to get power then just a bunch of people trying to get by. Don't you know its just humans that run a government. I like minimum government BECAUSE I have little faith in human nature.

Anarchist wouldn't bother using a wall. Only statist do that. It's easier to defend yourself from some small sect than thugs that represent "all the people.".

Governments have put me against the wall a bunch of times so far so I'll take my chances.