Merlin wrote the following in another thread:
Yep, I’m talking about the 1997 collapse in Albania. Now, you made a very sharp remark, and it is indeed the case that the main component of that civil unrest was the southern half of the country felt alienated by the predominately northern-staffed government (just as the northerners had felt alienated during the 50 years of southern-dominated communist rule).
A few remarks from actual staleness:
- The whole thing lasted a just few months, for an international peacekeeping force (that did nothing but show up) was dispatched and the government retook the whole territory under its factual jurisdiction by 1999.
- The division of labor almost totally stopped. People begun hoarding foodstuffs and you could hardly find even necessities in stores. A major depopulation (and mass emigration) where set in motion.
- A few cities turned into arenas of gang warfare where even stepping outside of one’s house was a daring feat indeed. Note that gang violence had absolutely no sub-regional component.
- Local gangs did begin to take over, and if given time, they could have established fiefs in the whole country.
- In some cities, the citizens organized themselves into ‘public safety committees’ which tried to erect state-like apparatuses, and even recall the popular former PM into taking over in their ‘jurisdictions’.
Now, I do not know how the situation would have evolved if the country had been left alone for a couple of years. What I can imagine is that the above-mentioned gang and/or public committees would have erected cantons instead of the unitary government that was in place before. That would have been a wonderful achievement, but the point is that these would yet have been states. So, from statelessness many states would have emerged anew!
So, the system was ‘reset’ in a sense, and it began organizing into city-states, which would indicate that, at least for now, that is the best political regime known. If a push for cantonisation can be made without having the whole social apparatus collapse, than by all means one should go for that. If panarchy (‘anarcho-capitalism’) will ever be workable (I believe it will), it sure as hell isn’t yet. We need that state for now.
About the same thing happened in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. So it seems to me that anarchy can only be made possible when there is a consensus in the population about the non aggression principle.
What do you think?
A collapsed state is not proof that we need a state. If anything, shouldn't the horror that ensues after a large, centralised state collapses be an argument against, you know, large, centralised states?
Isn't that what we want though, to reduce the state to zero? That may achieve the same results then.
The Collapsed State
When you base you society on a foundation, and that foundation collapses, your society will collapse as well. However, that doesn't mean you cannot have an alternative foundation.
Wow, very good link Evilsceptic!
Russia is about the most Stalinist minded place on Earth. That's what happens when you systematically try to kill everyone that disagrees with you. It's a mafia culture like no other.