Darn...it looks like my outreach project has already been done for me!
The only thing left is to spread the word!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Rational philosophy is on the march. It will f--- up all of your sh-- and leave you without any teeth."
Building an Ethics on the Foundation of Respect and Accountability
What is this?
Welcome to Back to the Drawing Board! Until the summer of 2009, this blog was maintained by Danny Shahar, who subsequently went off to begin graduate school at the University of Arizona. Feel free to look around, keeping in mind that by the time you read this Danny will likely think that everything on this site is terribly unsophisticated and crude.
Posts by Subject
- Justice (83)
- Economics (41)
- Climate Change (40)
- Ethical Theory (39)
- Property Rights (34)
- Liberty (31)
- The Molyneux Project (31)
- Opportunity (28)
- Distributive Justice (27)
- Lifestyles (27)
- Equality (25)
- Intrinsic Value (25)
- Legislation (21)
- Appropriation (20)
- Decentralization (14)
- The Non-Identity Problem (13)
- Reasonable Pluralism (12)
- Collective Duties (11)
- Climate Change Skepticism (10)
- The Morality Debate (9)
- Emergent Problems (8)
- Procedural Justice (8)
- Environmental Values (7)
- Compensation (6)
- Discounting (4)
- Paternalism (4)
- Pollution (4)
- Gay Marriage (3)
- Taijitu (3)
- Abortion (2)
Posts by Date
-
▼
2009
(63)
-
▼
May
(13)
- On the Two Functions of the Principles of Justice ...
- Assorted Responses to Callahan on Value Theory
- Priorities Call: A Response to Roman Pearah
- Check Out Roman Pearah's Critique of My Metaethica...
- Value Subjectivism Isn't A Mistake: A Reply to Cal...
- Check out Gene Callahan's Post on the Morality Deb...
- Why Fictionalism?: A Reply to Stan
- Inside a Fiction: Even More on Metaethics
- More on Metaethics: A Reply to Callahan
- Lighting Authoritarianism Is Hilarious
- Adventures in Moral Nihilism and Existentialism
- Beaten to the Punch
- Summer Plans...
-
▼
May
(13)
Followers
Read Things I've Written Elsewhere!
- In Praise of Educational Pluralism (Reprinted in The Freeman 1/20/09)
- In Praise of Educational Pluralism (9/15/08)
- The Seen and Unseen of Drinking-Age Laws (8/21/08)
- Could We Ever Justify Restraining Someone From Doing Drugs? (Part I) (1/2/08)
- Paternalists Just Don't Understand (11/20/07)
- Not High; Still Mighty (11/15/07)
- Putting a Price on Injustice (9/17/07)
- The Bjorn Ultimatum (9/4/07)
- The Skeptic's Wager (8/9/07)
- Who Dares Question the Global Warmocaust? (8/6/07)
- On the Objectivity of Self Ownership (8/1/07)
9 comments:
It makes me facepalm when some ancaps say that Somalia is a "good" example of anarchy.
As far as I can tell, they are right when they say it's better than when it had a central. But it's still a third-world shithole.
Agreed. If you haven't listened to it already, Pete Leeson gave a really great lecture on it at FEE last summer.
Yes, Somalia is -all things beeing equal- better off stateless.
I have to think of Nozick, who claimed that the worst anarchy would be better than the worst state. Where would you rather want to live? In the Somalia of today or in the Ukraine 1932?
I forgot: The video made me lol.
Somalia is a tough example because it was completely lacking in necessary institutions when it became anarchical. I see stable democracy of some sort or another as a necessary step between feudalism/tribalism/etc and a more free society. Stable democracy provides the environment for the development of institutions that will be needed for anarchy to be functional. I don't know of any "developed" economies that have experienced a significant governmental collapse, by which I mean complete collapse not contentious transfer of power. This would be a true test of market anarchy and I doubt that it is too far in the future. I wouldn't be surprised to see Thailand go there or some of the Eastern European countries.
Good point, blob.
Greg, I'm not sure I think the collapse of a state would be a good test for the sort of anarchy that most libertarian anarchists have in mind. In a collapsed state, there is usually a struggle for power that ends with a new state being implemented. It seems to me that the libertarians would want to see an ideological shift in a country that resulted in greater tolerance for voluntary forms of dissociation from the mainstream political order, thereby allowing for anarchy to arise peacefully out of a state-ordered system. At least, I should hope that the libertarian anarchists aren't rooting for political collapse!
Good point, my language was pretty misleading. My implication was that if the people of a developed nation lost faith in government, the beneficial and necessary institutions would likely not collapse along with the government. I have a friend in Thailand who tells me that all the local people view politics as a sham and don't accept either side as legitimately representing them. Nonetheless, aside from political violence, rule of law prevails. As Leeson puts it (thanks for the link), a developed country would likely become a first best anarchy, which would likely maintain the necessary and beneficial institutions of first best democracy, just without the monolithic centralized power backing them.
That's really interesting about Thailand. Has your friend ever considered writing about the situation over there? I would love to hear more!
Post a Comment