For those of you who read my RSS feed, make sure you visit my blog itself sometimes. I have some nice stuff in the sidebar and at the bottom of the page. Blogger has an experimental "Google Search Your Blog" widget, which is kind of neat. If anyone is having problems with that widget, let me know and I'll take it out.
In Google Search, my blog is the #1 result for "oligopoly"! That's kind of cool.
I'm interested in the idea that Somalia is a valid example of a stable anarchistic society. However, I don't think that Somalia could withstand an full-scale invasion by the USA. Luckily, the US military is still distracted by Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. However, if Somalia really is a stable anarchistic society, you can be sure that some pretext for invasion will be found soon. I can't imagine the red market anywhere tolerating the emergence of a stable anarchistic society.
I'm planning on reading the links on Somalia provided below by Aahz, but I haven't done that yet.
Aahz has posted a bunch of comments here, which is something I want to encourage. So, I put his blog on my "hitlist", but was overall disappointed.
On further reading of Aahz's blog, I'm afraid that I have to classify him as "not an agorist", which IMHO is the same as "not a real anarchist". It's disappointing, because he does have some interesting stuff. He's been accepting payments in exchange for writing on certain topics; I'm afraid that the acceptance of advertisement money has affected his ability to think clearly.
I've been looking carefully at Aahz's blog, and his post promoting a payday loan service has me really angry. This post is obviously a paid promotion. Payday loans are a HUGE RIPOFF of working class people. They have interest rates of 20%-25% or more. If you're that desperate, it's better than becoming homeless, but nobody should ever be that desperate. That definitely is over the line of what I consider acceptable. (Well, Aahz may be so clueless financially that he didn't know that, but really, he should know better.) I've concluded his blog's spam-to-content ratio is too high for me, but I'll check back once in awhile to see if he's finished his series of posts on Somalia.
My concern for Aahz is that his acceptance of ads has compromised his ability to think clearly and independently. If your source of income is affecting your ability to think, you're as much a slave (or more so) as if you were physically in chains. I was very critical of him in my comments on his blog, but that's because I was trying to help him. I'll look at his blog occasionally, but he doesn't make it into my regular daily reading list.
On Bradspangler.com, Brad Spangler talks about how the State distorts the price of capital:
The price of financial capital (interest rates in a state distorted market) is not the sole way statism acts to deny workers access to financial capital (and, hence, economic independence). In addition to looking at price distortions (both upward and downward), we should perhaps be looking at the supply of financial capital.
However, Brad Spangler sort of misses the point.
The problem is that the State charges different groups different prices for capital.
A large mega-corporation can borrow at a slight premium to the Fed Funds Rate. For example, the Fed Funds Rate is currently 4.5%, but AAA corporate bonds yield around 6% right now.
A small business or individual has to borrow at a much higher rate. Mortgages are still around 6%, but if an individual finances his business this way, then he is risking his home for his business. That isn't exactly equal to what a mega-corporation's management is risking. Even when a mega-corporation fails, its top management will usually pick up similarly cushy jobs somewhere else. Small business loans are priced at 8% or more.
Part of this is due to government regulations. Loans to large corporations are "safe", because the rules of the economic game are biased in favor of large corporations. Banks can use leverage ratios of around 100x when they invest in AAA corporate debt. By borrowing at 4.5% and lending at 6%, banks can profit at a rate of 150% if they maximize their leverage.
Loans to individuals are "risky", because the rules of the economic game are biased against them. For loans to individuals, leverage ratios of only 10x-20x are allowed. By borrowing at 4.5% and lending at 8% with 20x leverage, a profit rate of only 70% is realized.
Government regulations say how much leverage banks may use for each class of loans. Banks prefer to loan to large corporations due to loan regulations. Plus, economic conditions mean that the large corporation should be able to repay its debts. Even if the bank forecloses during an economic bust, it can hold onto the confiscated assets until the next boom cycle, and then sell them for a profit after the money supply is inflated.
Due to negative real interest rates, borrowing is the cheapest way to fund a business. Government regulations guarantee that large corporations can borrow more cheaply than individuals.
Without negative real interest rates, the most efficient way to grow a business would be reinvested earnings. If you are forced grow via reinvested earnings, a small business is on equal or greater footing than a large corporation.
On Reader Mail #11, in reference to List of Proposed Constitutional Amendments, an anonymous reader says:
I didn't miss your point, I ignored it (I have always been a windmill-tilter.) Here's another proposed amendment:
This constitution is hereby annulled. It shall not be replaced with a new constitution.
What's the difference between missing my point and ignoring my point?
Anyway, I'll repeat the main point. It isn't possible to patch the US Constitution with a finite list of amendments. There will always be holes.
The correct solution is that having a monopolistic government was a bad idea. All services currently provided by the government could be more efficiently provided by multiple competing vendors in a free market.
Agorism describes the way to nonviolently get from the current system to a free market.
On Reader Mail #11, in reference to the above comment, Aahz says:
re: anonymous' new amendment
If the constitution is annulled, then how can the provision that it not be replaced be considered valid?
I noticed that also. That sort of is circular reasoning. If your Constitution says "All Constitutions are invalid.", then by self-reference, anyone can ignore that degree.
You could make a version that is logically correct. "All Constitutions, except for this sentence, are invalid." I would vote for that amendment.
On Reader Mail #11, Aahz says:
re: SomaliaI had added the Philaahzophy blog to my hitlist. I didn't realize until just now that "Aahz" is a reference to the author. After careful consideration, Philaahzophy is in my "honorable mention" category. It has some good stuff and is worth an occasional visit, but it failed to meet my "visit daily" rotation. The spam-to-content ratio is too high for me.
The UN and US tried for years to install another government in Democracy, thus the warlords are all fighting to be in control of that government when/if it comes into existence. But the people and businesses of Somalia have peaceably gone about their business in the meantime.
Anarchy Unbound @ Cato Unbound
Peter T. Leeson, “Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse” (PDF)
Peter T. Leeson, "One More Time With Feeling" (PDF)
The Law of the Somalis: A Stable Foundation for Economic Development in the Horn of Africa
I'm currently reading the last book in preparing for my continuing series on Somalia at Philaahzophy.
Lately, I've been appreciating free online resources more than books. I find the amateur stuff is usually of a higher quality. I'll read the first three links at some point, but I probably won't read the book. I noticed some bits on Somalia on the Philaahzophy blog.
I haven't read any of those sources yet, so I can't comment further. I'm adding them to my reading list.
I was expecting the first successful anarchistic society to start in the USA, rather than a third world country. Is it time to move to Somalia?
My gut reaction is "Somalia isn't really a proper anarchy.", but I haven't read any of those sources.
On FSK Asks About Blogger and RSS Feeds, Aahz says:
One word: FeedBurner. Set up your RSS feed through them (about 5 minutes work) and you can see all kinds of detailed info about your RSS feeds.
I'd read about that option when I researched via Google search. I don't see why I should have to redirect my RSS feed through another site in order to get a subscriber count. Google and Blogger should provide this directly somewhere. Their UI is pretty good overall, so it's got to be in there somewhere. If not, they should be adding it soon.
I was wondering if Google or Blogger provided that information directly somewhere. My guess is that the answer is "Not right now". They probably will add that feature at some point, so my options are (1) use Feedburner or (2) wait for Google to update their UI. I could also (3) ask on the Google Blogger tech support forums, but I tried that once in the past and received no useful responses.
On the Ron Paul Forum, another discussion of the gold standard degenerated into a trollfest.
[lots of troll noise and people arguing with trolls]
Once again, trolls have successfully disrupted debate on the Ron Paul Forum.
The point is: Ron Paul has clearly stated that he prefers a gold standard to the current monetary system. Realistically, a hybrid system is achievable, by removing the taxes and regulations that prevent people from using gold as money.
Ron Paul has clearly stated that he likes the gold standard. Anyone posting on the Ron Paul Forum who is strongly opposed to the gold standard either doesn't understand Ron Paul's positions or is a troll.
IMHO, these are the two main attraction points of Ron Paul's campaign:
- His opposition to the Federal Reserve.
- His opposition to the income tax and the IRS.
If you're strongly opposed to either of the above, then why are you trolling the Ron Paul Forum?
On Philaahzophy, Aahz wrote:
MyWallSt.net is a great site for newbie investors!
I don't know what you're smoking. Yahoo Finance, the Motley Fool, and Vanguard are all better resources for newbie investors.
This post reads like a spam advertisement for MyWallSt.net. I visited and was quite unimpressed. Compare Yahoo's page on Coca-Cola (KO) with MyWallSt.net's page. Are they even in the same ballpark?
Seriously, if you're that clueless, just buy an S&P 500 index fund. With an S&P 500 index fund, your returns should closely track the true inflation rate, or maybe you'll get 2%-4% more than inflation.
Then, Aahz said:
It *IS* an advertisement! And MyWallSt.net really is better than Yahoo Finance!
First, it was by no means obvious to me that it was an advertisement. The only hint was a small logo on the bottom of the page.
Really? How much did you get paid for compromising your journalistic integrity? How much would I accept to make a white lie like that? How do you line up deals like that? How many advertising deals do you have?
How many readers do you have? I'm at around 100/week, which probably means I couldn't net much from advertising.
Is your promotion of Somalia as a stable anarchistic society an advertisement?
On the other hand, if I could get a few $k per month on such deals, that would mean I wouldn't have to take a regular slave job. My main concern with Aahz's blog is that the post wasn't clearly marked as an advertisement. The only hint is a small icon at the bottom of the post. My other concern is that he's strongly defending his advertisers, rather than really thinking about the quality of their site.
Second, I have script-blocking software enabled, so I didn't see all the features of MyWallSt.net. After allowing scripts to run, I see that MyWallSt.net has approximately the same information as Yahoo Finance. If you count ads, I'd say the two sites are equivalent in ad content.
Yahoo has more links to new stories. However, both sites appear to choose news based on who pays them to list their stories.
Their pages on options data are comparable.
Yahoo's charting feature is superior to MyWallSt.net's. Yahoo allows for charts to be displayed on a log scale, which is important if you're looking at a chart longer than a year. MyWallSt.net's charts max out at 10 years, but Yahoo will display all data. Yahoo clearly displays split data on their charts.
There was one feature that MyWallSt.net had that Yahoo Finance is missing. It has "Last Sale" information on the Level II quote screen. However, it only displays the last few trades. It won't let you view the entire day.
MyWallSt.net did not appear to have the ability to display and continuously update multiple quotes on the same page. I configured Yahoo to display and continuously update all the stocks in my portfolio. MyWallSt.Net didn't appear to have the ability to generate a page like this.
There was one useless user comment for KO on MyWallSt.net. Yahoo has a discussion board that contains many comments, 99.99% of which are spam.
Overall, it had some slight improvements over Yahoo Finance, but several deficiencies. I'm not convinced to switch.
Personally, I don't like to read other people's analysis of stocks anymore. I'm fully qualified to analyze them myself. In fact, I like to read other people's analysis, if only to do the opposite of what everyone else is saying. Lately, analysts have really been promoting how awful Citigroup is. My reaction is: "Time to buy Citigroup". (Full disclosure: I currently own 300 shares of C.)
Was Aahz merely pretending to be a newbie investor, or does he really not know much about investing?
I see that Aahz posted an earnings report. He made a few hundred bucks in September. I think I'll just focus on growing my readership and writing good content, and worry about profiting later if that becomes an option. Assuming Aahz spent 200 hours/month on his blog, that means he was only earning $2/hr, which doesn't interest me.
Aahz posted a partial response to my comment:
Apparently FSK is greatly concerned about the fact that I actually get paid to write some of the things I write here. I find this strange coming from someone who also recently asked me how he could make money off the writing he does at his blog, but I’ll still do my best to answer his questions.
I say that it is breaking journalistic integrity to accept payment to write an article, without clearly stating that article is an advertisement. Mainstream media does this all the time, but that does not make it moral. For example, a news story may cover the merits of a new drug, while the TV station takes advertisements from the drug manufacturer (for the same or different drugs).
Personally, if I was being paid to write on something I thought was true, I could do that without feeling guilty. If I was being paid to make a white lie, it would have to be a decent amount of money. I don't think I could be paid to write a "The Federal Reserve is wonderful" article, without it coming out as being completely sarcastic.
I would be breaking my journalistic integrity to say that MyWallSt.com is the best site for newbie investors, when I consider other sites to be better. Aahz probably doesn't have as much financial knowledge as I do, so his ability to evaluate an investment website may be different. Later, Aahz says that he really is a true newbie investor.
I'll define journalistic integrity. The people usually classified as journalists I would more properly classify as propaganda artists. Journalistic integrity means that I should write about what I sincerely think is true and interesting. If someone pays me to write about something, I should tell my readers that I received payment, even if I would have written the article anyway. I try to avoid lying, and I consider confusing advertisements with content to be lying.
Someone won't get a job as a "journalist" for a major newspaper or TV station, unless their sincere opinions matched the official corporate statist agenda. People with non-conforming opinions get weeded out of the propaganda artist industry, usually while they're still a student.
If I knew that article was an advertisement, I would not have checked out MyWallSt.com at all. Aahz cost me the handful of minutes I spent looking at MyWallSt.com and deciding "This site sucks! Why did Aahz refer me here?" I now know enough to not be fooled again, so I can read the rest of Aahz's blog without the advertisements bothering me as much. My guess is that 99.99% of his advertisements are promotions of other websites, so all I have to do is not follow links in posts that look like advertisements.
I did not contradict myself by asking for advice on ways to monetize my blog, and being critical of paid-for posts. There are other honest ways to monetize a blog, such as Google adwords.
I guess there is some risk of being associated with inappropriate content by using adwords, since I don't control the content presented. On the other hand, the blog reader can ignore the adwords section. I don't use adwords yet either, primarily for the reason that it would only net me at most a few dollars per month. Plus, a google adwords widget clearly identifies itself as "ads sponsored by Google".
I consider presenting advertisements as content to be a breach of journalistic integrity. Of course, I am not blogging for profit (at this time), so I can write on whatever interests me. Morally, I would have to say "THIS POST IS AN ADVERTISEMENT" in bold letters at the top of the page, to not feel guilty about it.
There's a common censorship tactic used by the media. If a TV show broadcasts something that contradicts the official corporate statist agenda, advertisers may pull their ads. Economic pressure insures that viewpoints expressed by mainstream media follow certain guidelines. This is not genuine free market pressure, because almost all advertisements are placed by large corporations, who receive massive state subsidies.
Accepting money for posts on certain topics can, in theory, affect what you post in the rest of your blog. If your advertisers don't like the rest of your blog, they can pull their advertisements.
I'm concerned that Aahz's acceptance of advertisements from corporations is affecting his ability to think like a true anarchist. Yes, you are free to accept ads from corporations if that's what you need to do to make a living. You should still resent a system that makes you do that to survive. For example, why can't you take ads from small non-corporate businesses? There aren't many such businesses! Why not?
If Aahz's acceptance of advertisement is affecting his ability to think clearly, then that makes him as much of a slave as if he were under physical chains. On the other hand, he has to make a living, and if that's the least disgusting means he knows about, go ahead and do it.
Yes, I work for large corporations to make a living. I can't stand it, but I do what I have to do to survive. I have no illusions about my status as slave in a master/slave corporate relationship. Working for a financial firm can sometimes get embarrassing. I ask other people "Don't you realize that you're just the beneficiary of a massive government subsidy?", and I can't make them understand. The have to make sure they don't understand, because otherwise they would feel too much guilt. Having attained partial enlightenment, I'm not going to abandon it or pretend to be a fool, just for a job.
Aahz also says:
The average American spends nearly 1/3 of their life working for a living. That would mean that 1/3 of our lives are a lie. Besides, isn’t attacking my opinions just because I earned a few bucks on them just another twist on the Strawman Fallacy you fight so hard against on your blog?
Yes, the current economic and political system is completely and totally corrupt. Looking back at all the jobs I've had, they were in fact a complete and utter waste of time. Financial programming is irrelevant. The financial industry makes its money from a massive government subsidy, and not by writing good software. I've also worked in the telecom industry. Cell phone companies received a massive government subsidy in the form of spectrum rights auctioned off at a deep discount to the fair value. The cell phone company I worked for made more money off appreciation in their spectrum rights than anything else they did.
Yes, all the jobs I've had were a lie. In retrospect, almost all white collar jobs are a complete and utter waste of time. The US economy is almost completely fraudulent. Certain aspects of the economy are so efficient that things keep running even though a massive amount of waste occurs. I'm afraid to say that, IMHO, none of the computer programming jobs I've ever had have increased the total wealth of the entire world. In that sense, all my jobs were a lie. On the other hand, I still need to work to survive.
I do feel that my blog overall increases the wealth of the entire world, because it's educating people. If people can be converted to the agorist/anarchist philosophy, or educated in that direction, it is very valuable. Also, by blogging, it costs me the same amount of effort whether I have 10 readers or 10,000,000 readers. In theory, I could benefit a lot of people, compared to the effort spent writing. According to Google Analytics, I'm currently at around 100-200 readers per week, which is enough to make me feel that I'm not wasting my time.
By making me waste time looking at MyWallSt.net, Aahz actually decreased the total wealth of the entire world. I wasted time analyzing a lousy website, when I could have been working on another blog post or reading someone else's blog. The amount Aahz received for writing the article, divided by the # of readers, is less than the value of wasting my time. Aahz profited, but the value of my wasted time was more than Aahz's profit.
That's the fundamental flaw of all advertising. The TV station receives pennies per person per advertisement. I have to waste 1/3 of my time watching ads. Of course, I use a VCR and fast-forward through the commercials.
I would be using the Strawman Fallacy against Aahz only if I stopped reading his blog because of the worst thing he did: improperly representing paid advertisements as original posts. I will continue to read his blog as long as it is interesting. I can be critical of the things you do that I don't like, without using the Strawman Fallacy against you. As long as I'm only criticizing specific actions, I'm not using the Strawman Fallacy. I have decided to visit Aahz's blog less often, due to the high percentage of spam content.
For example, I've come to the conclusion that shows like The Daily Show and Colbert Report are actually fake opposition. They really are just shills for the establishment. They'll never have a guest who takes the correct position of "Who needs a government anyway?" It's important to have fake opposition, to prevent genuine opposition from emerging. By The Strawman Fallacy, I should refuse to watch their shows. In reality, I accept them for the entertainment they do provide, while I'm fully aware of their shortcomings.
In summary, it looks like Aahz and I disagree on the morality of accepting money to post articles in your blog, without clearly marking the as an advertisement. I say it's immoral, even if it's an article you would have posted anyway. Aahz says it's acceptable.
There are circumstances where I could validly accept money to discuss a subject. For example, if someone asked me to post an ad promoting an anarchist book fair, I could validly post the article and clearly indicate it as an advertisement. (That post was not a paid advertisement, in case you're still wondering.)
On the Pleasuredome forum, someone said:
There are 650 peers, and you receive 50 randomly at each announce cycle. After 15 announce cycles, you should have the full peer list.
WRONG! (Actually, in a real BitTorrent situation, other people would be connecting to you, so you would get a large list pretty quickly.)
At each announce cycle, you receive peers randomly WITH REPLACEMENT. You can receive the same peer 2 announce cycles in a row.
This makes an interesting math problem. Assume no remote connections. Assuming the peer list doesn't change, how many announce cycles does it take (on average) to get half the peers? The obvious answer of ceiling(325/50)=7 is wrong, because you can receive the same peer multiple times. I feel that at one time I could have solved this easily, but the I forget the solution.
On Check Your Premises, there's an interesting post about religious tolerance:
No, when we examine each case where “religious tolerance” is invoked, we invariably find that a religious person is trying to silence criticism of his religion, or condemning attacks against it. We find that “religious tolerance” is in fact a defense of organized religion, in the name of the principle that “all religions must be respected.”
I hadn't though of classifying priests as red market agents before. "Officially recognized" religions do receive state subsidies in the form of tax loopholes.
There's one important point that this post misses. Religion and statism go together. This is actually a frequent counter-argument to agorism: "Without the State, who would punish criminals?" The goal of a proper justice system is not to punish criminals; it's to restore equity to the injured party. The idea that criminals must be "punished" comes from religion. (Plus, without a state there would be less crime overall, IMHO. Currently, many victimless free-market actions are treated as crimes.) Of course, that doesn't mean a billionaire could go around murdering people and get off for a fraction of his net worth. Also, the consequences of getting caught committing a crime do need to be more than merely restoring equity; otherwise, it would be riskless to commit crimes! However, that's a careful risk calculation, and not some arbitrary punishment scale.
In the eyes of the average person, the state and organized religion are the same. Worship a monotheistic all-powerful god. Serve a monopolistic all-powerful state. They're the same.
On Philaahzophy, Aahz writes, in reference to the writers' strike (paraphrased):
I don't like striking workers. If you don't like your job, quit and find a new job.
This one isn't even a sponsored post? Are you sure you're really an anarchist?
The problem is that most industries are organized as a cartel.
The TV industry is dominated by a few large corporations, who offer identical working conditions to their workers. There's no true "free market" in writing for TV shows.
Given the constraint of a non-free market, workers organizing into unions is their best option. The problem is that unions are heavily regulated. This makes unions an extension of the state, rather than true advocates of workers' rights.
Of course, I'd prefer a free market. In a truly free market, workers would be able to quit their job and find an equal or better job pretty quickly.
Personally, as a highly skilled worker, I prefer to work in a non-unionized industry. This way, I don't have union regulations preventing me from being paid more for higher productivity. Instead, I have clueless management preventing me from being paid more for higher productivity!
Then, Aahz says:
Why is it a problem that most industries are organized into cartels? If they weren't using the force of government to create and maintain those cartels then it wouldn't be a problem.
This discussion was before my post on How the State Destroys Small Businesses.
That's precisely the problem! Government force has caused each industry to be organized in a bunch of cartels! Government force creates barriers to competition. This cartelization causes the labor market to be biased against workers, who form unions to compensate. Government force means that employers are running a Distributed Costs and Concentrated Benefits scam. The workers respond by running a Distributed Costs and Concentrated Benefits scam of their own.
Suppose the government disappeared all of a sudden, or declined to intervene in the dispute. What would happen?
The workers are free to strike. The TV stations are free to hire replacement writers, or hire writers who break ranks with the union. I never said that it was immoral for the TV stations to hire replacement writers.
I say it isn't immoral to strike. Economic conditions make it impractical for the writers to get together and buy their own TV station, due to the oligopolistic nature of the market. Therefore, they have to form a union to protect their interests. In a truly free market, if the writers were unsatisfied with their working conditions, the best writers would get together and form a new TV station.
On The Reason Anarchists are Weak, Aahz wrote:
Very, very few of the protesters at the G8 summit, WTO, and IMF meetings were actually anarchists. Most were anti-corporatists, such as yourself. Listen to their speeches and read their texts. They want government regulation of all sorts, just not in the direction it's going now. Feel free to visit an anti-WTO website and argue that people should be free to drill for the oil in Alaska. You'll quickly be labelled a troll if not banned entirely.
Many, many anarchists offer up options for how we can have an orderly society without government. We don't argue for "replacing" the government, because we want it removed, not replaced. We don't want anyone, regardless of what they call themselves, stealing the fruits of our labor.
And once again, you're perpetuating the myth that there is no history of anarchist societies. I already gave you references for how Somalia has advanced without government in the 15 years it has been stateless. I wrote an article about the Yurok indian tribe of California on Philaahzophy. Peter Leeson, an economics professor at George Mason University, wrote a great paper on anarchy amongst pirates. The Libertarian Nation Foundation has an excellent paper rife with examples as well.
Large corporations receive massive government subsidies. If large corporations can still be profitable in a stateless society, then they deserve to continue to exist. However, I doubt that a large corporation is viable in a stateless society. The inefficiencies and government subsidies in the current system are too huge. Instead, you would have groups of small businessmen forming associations.
I consider myself "agorist" instead of "anti-corporatist". You can't really be an anarchist and be in favor of large corporations. A large corporation is an extension of the state. Large corporations can't exist without the state.
The idea that large corporations have earned their market position through efficiency is pure propaganda. Large corporations receive massive government subsidies. People are brainwashed into believing that megacorporations are truly efficient. If you've worked in a large corporation for even just a few years, you would see how incredibly inefficient they are.
The problem is that the mainstream media calls these protesters "anarchists". The word "anarchist" is tainted. There are lots of different philosophies that are covered by "anarchist". That's why I call myself "agorist", which is a much sounder philosophy. A lot of people are attracted to the idea of "no government", but get their philosophy distracted by these phony anarchists. When I say "replace government", I mean replacing the services currently provided badly by government: education, investigating when someone injures you, contract enforcement, money, etc.
Even under agorism, different business models could be employed simultaneously. The point is that no single model could claim a monopoly. If you aren't injuring anyone, then other people will leave you alone. I don't know exactly what system would be most efficient, but I can make an educated guess. The key is to start experimenting!
I already link to the Libertarian Nation Archive in my blog, in the links section at the bottom of the page. I haven't had a chance to read much of it yet. I haven't read your links on Somalia yet, either.
Most of the historic examples of anarchistic societies were only partially anarchistic. They didn't fail because they had no State. They failed because they had a very weak State, which either was infiltrated or overthrown by force.
I think that a modern anarchistic society would look different from those historic examples. The only way to find out is to perform an experiment!
Are you sure Somalia is a great anarchist society? I don't hear stories of people moving to Somalia for a freer life. I haven't done my own research yet.
On How the State Destroys Small Businesses, Aahz writes:
Okay, so your conclusion is wonderful Where is this agorist community that I can move to?
It doesn't exist yet. Actually, there appear to be fragments developing in various locations. All you have to do is find people to trade with and work off the books. I'm looking to get a group started near where I live. (I live in a city large enough that an agorist community may be developing without me knowing about it!) I make a decent hourly wage in my regular slave job, so the agorist community would have to be advanced before it would pay for me to join.
For example, many people are starting to say: "Why should I support the Iraq war? Voting is pointless. My only recourse is to avoid paying income taxes and supporting an illegitimate government."
The most freedom-friendly places I've heard of are Wyoming and New Hampshire, related to the "free state project". However, I'm not interested in moving right now.