Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

With your definition, anarchy is mainly a function of where you draw your borders.

yes, if you draw the borders arbitrarily. But it wasn't me who drew Somalia on the World Map.

In what way does a warlord differ from a government?

in what way feudal lord differs from a government? well, for one he's more likely to be enforcing his will, than any widely recognized laws.



But it wasn't me who drew Somalia on the World Map

Depending on which world map you select, you'll find a single border which encompasses the UK, US, and India. Would you then declare that the British Empire now lives in anarchy?

If you go by official Chinese maps, China is also in a state of anarchy - the laws of China don't apply in Taiwan.

in what way feudal lord differs from a government? well, for one he's more likely to be enforcing his will, than any widely recognized laws.

This criticism applies to most dictatorships. Do dictatorships not qualify as governments?


jesus... I'm not talking about some historical situation, I'm talking about right here and right now.

AFAIR British Empire long ceased to exist. But when it existed it had quite unified law. That's why you have English law in the USA and that's what Law of India is largely based on too.

World map that shows PRC and Republic of China (and Hong Kong for that matter) as a single entity is simply wrong.


Much as the British Empire ceased to exist, Somalia ceased to exist as well. Any world map which shows Somalia as a single entity is simply wrong.

But of course, if world maps can be wrong, why are you appealing to their authority two posts up?


Somalia ceased to exist as well

indeed, Somalia the political entity ceased to exist. That's why Somalia the geographical entity is in anarchy. Which nobody besides you is disputing. But fine, let's finish this pointless thread, we're not getting anywhere :)


Not arguing with you, just some thoughts...

'Government' does not imply any particular form, nor does it imply consent or participation of the governed; the warlord model has had a pretty good run throughout history.

And yeah, none of us drew the border, but neither did the folks who live there...so there figuring it out now. Better late than never, right?


'Government' does not imply any particular form, nor does it imply consent or participation of the governed

I didn't claim it implies consent, but there is a pretty clear distinction between warlord or feudal lord and "the government", at least to me.

Genghis Khan was pretty powerful warlord, controlling much of Eurasia at one point, but he didn't have the government and he wasn't governing.

There's something else that you need to have in order to be considered The Government than just the ability to kill many and collect tax from many. But I'm too tired to elaborate any further right now. This thread is getting too long anyway.

And yeah, none of us drew the border, but neither did the folks who live there...so there figuring it out now. Better late than never, right?

actually it was largely us, the so-called "Western Civilization" that drew Somalia borders as they are recognized today. My point was that we already agree where that border is supposed to be (and nobody seriously recognizes Somaliland).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: