Viability of anarchocapitalism

[BrooklynRedLeg]

A fellow Liberty Forest poster asked this pertinent question: "So, at what point will we have killed enough to get our freedoms back?" And that's probably the only question that can now be asked. We killed Osama. We've killed Al-Awlaki. When the hell are we going to be let off this merry-go-round? Are we really going to accept constant war and being spied on as simply 'the price for living in America'?

[Edi]

A fellow Liberty Forest poster asked this pertinent question: "So, at what point will we have killed enough to get our freedoms back?" And that's probably the only question that can now be asked. We killed Osama. We've killed Al-Awlaki. When the hell are we going to be let off this merry-go-round? Are we really going to accept constant war and being spied on as simply 'the price for living in America'?

To be blunt, yes you are [as a nation], and no, you won't be getting off that merry-go-round, at least not during our lifetimes.

Not unless something happens that is momentous enough to shatter the underpinnings of the stranglehold the Security & Surveillance State apparatus and the military-industrial complex has on the nation's political power.

[Simon_Jester]

A fellow Liberty Forest poster asked this pertinent question: "So, at what point will we have killed enough to get our freedoms back?" And that's probably the only question that can now be asked. We killed Osama. We've killed Al-Awlaki. When the hell are we going to be let off this merry-go-round? Are we really going to accept constant war and being spied on as simply 'the price for living in America'?

Start convincing people not to take it lying down. We may get off the merry-go-round a hair faster for it.

If not... well. This is what we get for inflating a pack of guerillas and saboteurs into an existential threat, treating them as the militant arm of the enemy in a grand clash of civilizations. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, dontcha know.

The question of trying someone in absentia is dependent on the legal system. Whether the principle of the accused being able to present their arguments is fulfilled by the presence of counsel for the defense, or whether audi alteram partem is necessary, is largely a matter of opinion, but US law is clear that trials in absentia are not allowed.

Yep. I don't really disagree with this. My point is that if we wanted to have a legal procedure for signing an American citizen's death warrant on terrorism charges, which I do and the executive branch doesn't, that's how we'd do it.

We'd go through the Supreme Court and establish that in cases where the defendant flees the country and cannot feasibly be captured and brought to trial, we need some kind of modified court procedure permitting an in absentia trial, where the defense is handled by counsel and the proceedings are publicized so that the accused can follow their own trial if they choose to do so.

The fact that so far as I can tell, the administration isn't even remotely interested in being able to do this... that speaks volumes.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Start convincing people not to take it lying down. We may get off the merry-go-round a hair faster for it.

We're trying, though some people consider peaceful civil disobedience to be more harmful than good. Then there is the fact that certain personages have screeched that we should not be allowed to 'invade' the Occupy Wall Street protests, eventhough there is a great deal of crossover between our respective groups (mostly we try and teach people the difference between Corporatism and actual Capitalism).

:shrugs:

If not... well. This is what we get for inflating a pack of guerillas and saboteurs into an existential threat, treating them as the militant arm of the enemy in a grand clash of civilizations. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, dontcha know.

Yea, there is that fact too. My buddy that asked did it as a rhetorical device since we know that other campaigns watch the website (frothy Santorum even tried that in the last debate to smash Dr. Paul over the head with something we were talking about on the forums).

[BrooklynRedLeg]

And this is why I keep going on about the responsibility of libertarians to divorce themselves from corporatists if they want to be taken seriously as more than "the ideology of gimme." You've been infiltrated, and thus compromised, by people like this, and we're all paying the price.

Part of the problem is that the Corporatists are mostly (though not always) the Beltway Libertarians (Libertarian Party) as personified in CATO and the Kochtopus. Free Market Anarchists like me get shit from all sides (the Left hates us for our economics, the Right hates us for our social stands and the Libertarians hate us for having abandoned Minarchism). But I do agree that more Libertarians (and even libertarians) need to come out against Corporatism. Sadly, many (most?) of them are still confusing our modern fascistic system for a Free Market/Capitalism.

[Crateria]

And this is why I keep going on about the responsibility of libertarians to divorce themselves from corporatists if they want to be taken seriously as more than "the ideology of gimme." You've been infiltrated, and thus compromised, by people like this, and we're all paying the price.

Part of the problem is that the Corporatists are mostly (though not always) the Beltway Libertarians (Libertarian Party) as personified in CATO and the Kochtopus. Free Market Anarchists like me get shit from all sides (the Left hates us for our economics, the Right hates us for our social stands and the Libertarians hate us for having abandoned Minarchism). But I do agree that more Libertarians (and even libertarians) need to come out against Corporatism. Sadly, many (most?) of them are still confusing our modern fascistic system for a Free Market/Capitalism.

Wait, you're a Free-Market Anarchist? Aka, an anarcho-capitalist? If so, you are probably going to get flamed into the ground on SD.Net due to the lack of government intervention and protection against vicious, greedy corporations and street gangs/warlords Private Defense Agencies that your system allows for. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And this is why I keep going on about the responsibility of libertarians to divorce themselves from corporatists if they want to be taken seriously as more than "the ideology of gimme." You've been infiltrated, and thus compromised, by people like this, and we're all paying the price.

Part of the problem is that the Corporatists are mostly (though not always) the Beltway Libertarians (Libertarian Party) as personified in CATO and the Kochtopus. Free Market Anarchists like me get shit from all sides (the Left hates us for our economics, the Right hates us for our social stands and the Libertarians hate us for having abandoned Minarchism). But I do agree that more Libertarians (and even libertarians) need to come out against Corporatism. Sadly, many (most?) of them are still confusing our modern fascistic system for a Free Market/Capitalism.

Wait, you're a Free-Market Anarchist? Aka, an anarcho-capitalist? If so, you are probably going to get flamed into the ground on SD.Net due to the lack of government intervention and protection against vicious, greedy corporations and street gangs/warlords Private Defense Agencies that your system allows for. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I basically show him an image of medieval carnage whenever he opens his mouth on the subject. Speaking of which, I am due.

[Crateria]

Tis but a flesh wound! BrooklynRedLeg would be dead so fucking fast.

Just show pictures of Somalia, Kenya during the fucking insane presidential crisis (MEANWHILE IN KENYA ), Afghanistan (ever since the first tribesman took up arms against the communist regime, or hell all of its history for that matter), Haiti, Colombia, Iraq or some random nobody-gives-a-shit-about African country. You don't need to travel back THAT far.

Although, it does bring up a point. I'm not well versed in medieval history, but were those times primarily dominated by feuding bands that roamed the land? You'd think there would be some governments duking it out too.
Also, is it true that in anarcho-capitalism, you have to pay for everything, including driving on roads?

[Samuel]

Also, is it true that in anarcho-capitalism, you have to pay for everything, including driving on roads?

Paying for roads isn't so crazy- they have that rule in place in London right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge

[Crateria]

Also, is it true that in anarcho-capitalism, you have to pay for everything, including driving on roads?

Paying for roads isn't so crazy- they have that rule in place in London right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge

I heard of this idea or something like it from Chomsky or one of the other far-left guys, who was saying that an anarcho-capitalist society that made you pay tolls for the roads you rode on would make the society implode instantly as everyone would RAGEQUIT over this exploitative nonsense or something like that. I must find that quote to back up the claims, I know that's the rules on SD.Net.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

If so, you are probably going to get flamed into the ground on SD.Net due to the lack of government intervention and protection

I'm well aware that my type is not popular here. However, to be bluntly honest, saying that you fear evil greedy monopolistic corporations and therefore need a government is saying that you fear one monopoly so you're going to give another greedy monopoly the right to initiate force (since that is all government is, a monopoly on force).

greedy corporations

Without a government to charter them, there cannot be corporations. There is no body that would be able to grant them limited liability.

street gangs/warlords

There are already street gangs under the current system of government. The difference would be an armed populace that would have free reign to protect their property with deadly force.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

No one that I know of states that Free Market Anarchism is going to be utopia. The quote by Robert LeFevre sums up our feelings:

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."

[BrooklynRedLeg]

I basically show him an image of medieval carnage whenever he opens his mouth on the subject.

Which in no way, shape or form constitutes a rational argument. How the Migration/Viking/Conquest Era can be considered an example of Anarchy is beyond me. Anarchy means 'Without Rulers'. Last time I checked, the "Dark Ages" was the era of the Strong Man/King, many of whose ancestors got their start as Roman foederates. What in the blue fuck do government strong men have to do with 'Without Rulers'?

[Crateria]

"I'm well aware that my type is not popular here. However, to be bluntly honest, saying that you fear evil greedy monopolistic corporations and therefore need a government is saying that you fear one monopoly so you're going to give another greedy monopoly the right to initiate force (since that is all government is, a monopoly on force). "

Honestly, I wish we didn't need a government either. They are often evil, oppressive, corrupt. But I don't want to experience your society. I put no faith in one that will not protect us from people in corporations who trade in stock deadly sins: greed (money), lust (prostitution, pornography), envy (fancy cars and other things), pride (pointless dickwaving, ie getting a bigger car even though it causes lots of pollution), wrath (weapons), sloth (shit you don't need, aka all of the stuff people like Billy Mays try to sell you) (BILLY I LOVE YOU, DON'T TAKE MY STATEMENTS OFFENSIVELY ) and gluttony (McDonald's )


"Without a government to charter them, there cannot be corporations. There is no body that would be able to grant them limited liability. "

(this one talks about both foreign invaders and corporations, sorry I got distracted here.)

When government is around to monitor the behavior of corporations, it can prevent them from doing things like child labor and giving starvation wages to save money. Think about all the abuses done by American corporations, and think about how increasingly little regulation of them is going on. That's nothing compared to no regulation, because then they would be free to do what they please. Even if there is no government, corporations will likely still exist anyway because people need food and water and other resources, and tend to band together to create companies.

Additionally, if anyone can just go do whatever (since you, y'lnow, need a police force to stop crime) there will have to be things like mob justice. No, there WILL be mob justice or possibly cowboys. It might look like the Wild West out there. YOu sure you want this?

Besides, who says they are of the anarcho-capitalist country? They could be foreign invaders that run roughshod over the people like the East India Company. Especially without a government to retain a monopoly on force, the whole society is likely to be turned against each other; easy picking for an invader- all they have to do is sell weapons to the sides and make treaties and wait until they're weak enough to be conquered and put to work in whatever the company wants.

Competition between communities is almost a given since there is no unifying force like a national government to hold the country together. Nationalism, for all its faults, can bring unity to a nation. Can you imagine if China for example was an anarcho-capitalist society where everybody (possibly even by street or province) split against each other since they had no national government? Can you imagine the millions of casualties this might cause? They already came close to this in real life with the warlord era once the Republic of China was too weak to enforce their rule, and it took warfare of decades until China was at least nominally controlled by Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalists.

Even then, partly due to the lack of central government, China was notoriously divided, corrupt, and inefficient. Places like Shanghai were under the control of the Yakuza, which would become common place in your society as the lack of government to distribute resources and properly assist in keeping the police and state government clean would cause people to turn to unsavory characters and warlords to save their hides. And look what happened: Japan (a totalitarian, united nation under one government) was able to overrun & enslave (and cause horrendous suffering to) massive areas of China and the millions inside those areas. It took the combined efforts of the now mostly united people of China and outside nations (again, united under ONE GOVERNMENT) to drive them out.

And China's repressive but modernizing government (which by the way, completely controls the country) is now leading the country into prosperity. Can you see this in the medieval times, where there was no dominating government? Where armed bands ran amok (and into each other)?

Or how about Afghanistan, where 80% of the country during the Soviet War escaped the brutal communist regime's control, but afterwards became divided in Islamic fundamentalist groups who caused massive destruction to the country due to their basically anarcho-capitalist culture (where central government is impossible to implement due to tribal affiliations). Today Afghanistan is one of if not THE MOST UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRY ON THE PLANET. And their powerful neighbors (USA, Russia, India, China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, almost all completely united under ONE GOVERNMENT) were free to fund and support whoever they chose in order to get a government that would suck their dicks. And succeeded they ALL did, little RedLeg. In the various times in Afghanistan, it sucked Russian dick (1978-1992 for the whole, to a limited amount under the Northern Alliance), Iranian dick (the more fundie Shia Hazara obeyed from the beginning of 1978 ever since, same with NA), Uzbek (the Uzbek sections were supported since 1992, NA too) Saudi (the pro-Saudi Afghans, and the Taliban), China (they are going to get into Afghan oil reserves soon, possibly Taliban) American (the Taliban 1996-2001, the whole country since 2001, lmao. Perhaps they want people like you there instead of here, since we see how it goes)


I know what you're probably thinking: the millions of causalities that might result from an AC (anarcho-capitalist) societies internal conflict would easily be dwarfed by the many more that results from conflict between two or more nation-states, right? Well, so what? Nations, unless held together by a government that punishes the wrongdoers, tend to have less respect for the rights of humans. Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Colombia, Haiti are all countries where the government cannot control the whole country, and are these countries prosperous or free? How about NOPE! Colombia is dominated by drug-making militias who are incredibly violent and has one of the longest running wars. Haiti is basically a country with no strong government and as a result, many civilans are turning to gangs for protection. Exactly what would happen in your little AC land. Afghanistan is broken and divided, Iraq is under the control of violent, fundamentalist militias. Somalia? Don't even get me started.

Take all of the above. That's the future of your little society. LET YOUR FAILED SOCIETIES COMBINE!
FUNDIE MILITIAS! ADDICTIVE & PROFITABLE DRUGS! RUTHLESS GANGS! BRUTAL INVADERS! NO HUMAN RIGHTS!
BY YOUR FAILED SOCIETIES COMBINED, I AM CAPTAIN ANARCHO-CAPITALISM!




"There are already street gangs under the current system of government. The difference would be an armed populace that would have free reign to protect their property with deadly force. "

They don't have so great an influence in most areas that they can actually control cites and states, at least as far as I know. The ones that they do, suprise suprise are under ones that are either in bed with them or cannot control their territories. You know, in the societies you and your buds would like. Anarcho capitalism is different from other forms of Anarchism which promote cooperation. Capitalism by nature needs competition to give you what you want,

Armed populances can be full of shit. Just look at the south after the civil war. Their Confederacy was already never going to work (and neither was the Articles of Confederation, which BTW, was pretty close in my opinion to some or most of the goals you aim for, as well as what the Confederacy I think was based on. Do you know why they replaced it with a stronger Federal Government? Because it didn't work out in running a country. Look it up.) and they armed themselves against the black slaves and kept them oppressed until the state governments helped them oppress them too. And how do you define property? White slavers thought blacks were property, and they weren't stopped until a strong government (aka the Union, and latter the Federal government) beat the shit out of their little project by first defeating the Confederates and then much later on by passing laws against segregation.

Again, consider the nature of humans. They are competitive above all else. They are easily frightened and can be very stupid and violent. With no government to police them, they tend to go into every-man-for-himself. All the countries (real ones, not your little fairy tale one) have all the problems listed. Do you know why nobody bothers to destroy North Korea, for example, despite it being a tyrannical government that treats its population like shit? It's because, frankly, a North Korea that is under a government that can control its territory and not have massive amounts of refugees flowing out due to starvation, war and resource shortages is better than one that can't control anything at all, and have all of the problems listed.

Would you like North Korea to have multiple competing forces now transferring WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, INCLUDING NUKES, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS to TERRORISTS LIKE AL-QAEDA? You know, the ones who hate our guts and would gladly kill us all? What's to stop Menta-Lee-Ill down the street from selling a nuclear sub to them with the support of his AC community, which desperately wants the money to keep their pathetic society afloat? Strong, sane governments.



"No one that I know of states that Free Market Anarchism is going to be utopia. The quote by Robert LeFevre sums up our feelings:

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.""

Damn straight it won't be a utopia. It'll be likely a hell on earth. On my planet? I don't think so. I think this should be split from the regular topic, it's gone on too long.

Before I end this post, I want to say two last things. First, several years ago I might have agreed with you. I was thinking your ideas were a good idea. I'm glad I can see past them. And secondly. I tweak the immortal line from Ghostbusters:

You: Enough! I get the point! And what if you're wrong?
Me: If we're (the people who think an AC society is a stupid idea) wrong, then nothing happens. We'll be AC converts, peacefully, quietly. We'll enjoy it. But if we're right, and we can stop this thing... BrooklynRedLeg, you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters.

[Crateria]

I basically show him an image of medieval carnage whenever he opens his mouth on the subject.

Which in no way, shape or form constitutes a rational argument. How the Migration/Viking/Conquest Era can be considered an example of Anarchy is beyond me. Anarchy means 'Without Rulers'. Last time I checked, the "Dark Ages" was the era of the Strong Man/King, many of whose ancestors got their start as Roman foederates. What in the blue fuck do government strong men have to do with 'Without Rulers'?

It is an argument in itself, because it shows you (and anyone looking at it that has an IQ higher than 50) that your society, which has no government and relies on an armed, reactionary populance to get anything done will fail utterly due to the competitiveness and savage nature of humanity.

Strong men arrive in situations where the government is weakened by something and either are removed from office (peacefully or not), die still in a legal position of power or become warlords, which, due to my fuzziness on the medieval state, is what I guess happened.

[PeZook]

Split from here. While we did have a round or two about this topic recently, and so I am unsure if another discussion is warranted, I'll allow it in the hope that something interesting will come out of it.

As usual, no dogpiling. I am watching this thread.

Also, Crateria, learn to use the quote function.

[Surlethe]

BrooklynRed, what of the charge that a state of no government is unstable, and after a period of warfare (which is what happens when there's no monopoly on force) a new government will emerge? (I'm not going to participate in this thread, I don't have time, but I'm curious how you deal with this.)

[Purple]

Without a government to charter them, there cannot be corporations. There is no body that would be able to grant them limited liability.

That is becouse without a government to enforce it there can be no liability at all. Without a strong body that charts laws and enforces them through a monopoly on force there are no rules past the rule of whom ever has the bigger stick. And companies that amass large amounts of money will be capable of securing said bigger stick by hiring armies of goons to do their bidding. In fact, what you would see is that rich people would form a sort of hierarchy where the richer you are the larger your private army is and thus the larger your social standing becomes until eventually a single super rich guy with a large army comes along to rule them all as the once and future king.

[K. A. Pital]

Without a government there won't be corporations with limited liability? Oh boy, no, that's not so. There will be corporations and they would limit their liability via PMC's. Essentially becoming the substitute for a government.

In any case, I think we haven't had a solid debate on anarchism for a rather long time. I'm at least partially sympathetic to the anarchist cause, so I must say I'll observe this with interest.

[PeZook]

Without a government there won't be corporations with limited liability? Oh boy, no, that's not so. There will be corporations and they would limit their liability via PMC's. Essentially becoming the substitute for a government.

In any case, I think we haven't had a solid debate on anarchism for a rather long time. I'm at least partially sympathetic to the anarchist cause, so I must say I'll observe this with interest.

I made this thread partly because I see some potential in BrooklynRedLeg, and I think a periodic re-examination of one's ideals and stances helps prevent intellectual stagnation.

[Simon_Jester]

Without a government there won't be corporations with limited liability? Oh boy, no, that's not so. There will be corporations and they would limit their liability via PMC's. Essentially becoming the substitute for a government.

At which point they're just another gang- they happen to be a gang with strong business interests in certain sectors, that's all. That's not really a corporation, if you ask me; corporations have some features that matter, like being able to retain ownership of large amounts of capital and distribute losses among their members rather than have a single person be ruined if the corporation is destroyed.

I'd argue that in this, Brooklyn is strictly right. The corporation as a distinct legal entity does imply a government with the power to make laws and define "legal liability" so that it means something other than "this angry mob would like to tar and feather you, because you have displeased them."

Of course, in place of the corporation we get all sorts of other things, many of which we most likely won't like.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

I heard of this idea or something like it from Chomsky or one of the other far-left guys, who was saying that an anarcho-capitalist society that made you pay tolls for the roads you rode on would make the society implode instantly as everyone would RAGEQUIT over this exploitative nonsense or something like that. I must find that quote to back up the claims, I know that's the rules on SD.Net.

Actually, I do believe the US government is talking about making people pay taxes based upon the amount of mileage they drive. If the electric car gains more impact inside the US, the government will have to switch to 'per mileage' anyway since how else are they going to continue funding repairs? Its essentially a toll anyway, just deferred now where people don't see it (gasoline taxes). If a private company decided to purchase roads (to enforce tolls), they're going to face an uphill battle by having to purchase the right-of-way from all stores along the roads (in a commercial zone) or the houses (in residential). And no, they're not going to be able to fund mercenaries (ie - cops) to maintain it by brute force instead of negotiation since that is self-defeating. Dead customers don't pay tolls and dead mercenaries cause others to quit or demand higher wages.

[Simon_Jester]

So why do we see 'checkpoints' charging tolls crop up so frequently in lawless areas?

[BrooklynRedLeg]

When government is around to monitor the behavior of corporations, it can prevent them from doing things like child labor and giving starvation wages to save money.

Actually, it was government forces that allowed them to pay starvation wages (company store towns) and use children for labor.

Think about all the abuses done by American corporations, and think about how increasingly little regulation of them is going on.

Except that the corporations are the ones who write the regulations. They do it to stifle competition within their industry (I see it right now in private security) to set up barriers to entry and prevent private negotiation. Due to government interference (which was set up in Florida by S2 - Security & Intelligence), I cannot privately negotiate with ANY business owner to provide security for their property because I do not have the licenses (which require scads of money). They did this to control the monopoly on security, which drives our wages down (we also have to compete with the donut-munching public sector assholes).

That's nothing compared to no regulation, because then they would be free to do what they please.

No they wouldn't. They still have to produce goods that people want. They have to give incentives to their workers or they'll simply walk off the job. They could not simply enslave their workers since that requires hiring mercenaries. Dead mercenaries drive up costs and cause others to say 'Fuck you, I'm not taking the chance of getting shot by a disgruntled slave'. They also have to negotiate with other companies (to take Wal-Mart as an example). With no State-sanctioned courts, judges will have to be found and it will require both sides to agree on a negotiator. If one side reneges on their agreement, it becomes a mark against them. Bad faith in business means businesses will lose customers (word of mouth bad-mouthing, picketing etc) and lose trading partners.

Even if there is no government, corporations will likely still exist anyway because people need food and water and other resources, and tend to band together to create companies.

Do not confuse/conflate a company with a corporation. The latter is a government sanctioned legal shield. I never said there would be no companies. I said there would be no corporations.

Additionally, if anyone can just go do whatever (since you, y'lnow, need a police force to stop crime) there will have to be things like mob justice. No, there WILL be mob justice or possibly cowboys. It might look like the Wild West out there. YOu sure you want this?

I never said there would be no crime. However, if the entire populace is now free to buy/control arms, then crime will rapidly diminish. How many criminals are going to want to rip off a store when they see the owner (or his security staff) with machineguns and/or automatic rifles? As for mob justice, again, that will depend greatly upon what happens. If Wal-Mart starts enslaving its employees, the local citizenry might decide to form their own militia and free them. Same with any potential would-be road pirates. Dead customers pay no tolls/give no resources. Mr. Pirate is going to quickly find himself isolated.

Besides, who says they are of the anarcho-capitalist country? They could be foreign invaders that run roughshod over the people like the East India Company.

Yes, but that requires foreign soldiers to come protect the foreign corporation. If the populace is hostile, that would drive up the cost of staffing soldiers on foreign soil.

Especially without a government to retain a monopoly on force, the whole society is likely to be turned against each other; easy picking for an invader- all they have to do is sell weapons to the sides and make treaties and wait until they're weak enough to be conquered and put to work in whatever the company wants.

Other countries might well have to worry about their own populations turning against them. We've seen mass protests gain steam in the last year. The world wouldn't suddenly revert to the 19th Century without the government (I'm thinking of the US and likely Canada as the basis here). People would still end up connected to mass communications because those companies want to continue business.

Competition between communities is almost a given since there is no unifying force like a national government to hold the country together.

And most will try and peacefully negotiate. War is destructive and does not create a goddamn thing. People aren't going to all of a sudden become psychotic.

Can you imagine if China for example was an anarcho-capitalist society where everybody (possibly even by street or province) split against each other since they had no national government?

Except you're not talking about Anarchism. Warlords constitute government. Let's use Somalia as an example:

http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

Abstract

Could anarchy be good for Somalia’s development? If state predation goes unchecked government may not only fail to add to social welfare, but can actually reduce welfare below its level under statelessness. Such was the case with Somalia’s government, which did more harm to
its citizens than good. The government’s collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness opened the opportunity for Somali progress. This paper uses an “event study” to investigate the impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this
development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government. Renewed vibrancy in critical sectors of Somalia’s economy and public goods in the absence of a predatory state are responsible for this improvement.

Xeer, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A guurti (court) is traditionally formed beneath an acacia tree, where judges arbitrate a dispute until both parties are satisfied. This process can sometimes lead to several days' worth of discussions.

Xeer, pronounced [ħeːr], is the polycentric legal system of Somalia. Under this system, elders serve as judges and help mediate cases using precedents.[1] It is a good example of how customary law works within a stateless society and is a fair approximation of what is thought of as natural law. Several scholars have noted that even though Xeer may be centuries old, it has the potential to serve as the legal system of a modern, well-functioning economy.[2][3][4]

According to one report, the Somali nation did not begin with the common use of the Somali language by the clans, but rather with the collective observance of Xeer. Xeer is thus referred to as being both the father and child of the Somali nation. An analogous phenomenon is said to have occurred among the neighboring Oromo nation, which is now under Ethiopian rule.[3]

Under Xeer, there is no authority that dictates what the law should be. The law is instead discovered by judges as they determine the best way to resolve a dispute. As such, the Somali nation by tradition is a stateless society; that is, Somalis have never accepted the authority of any central government, their own or any other.[3] Under Xeer law, Somalia forms a kritarchy and conforms in many respects to natural law. The lack of a central governing authority means that there is a slight variation in the interpretation of Xeer amongst different communities. The laws that are widely accepted are called xeer guud and those particular to a specific community are referred to as xeer tolnimo.[5]

As with law systems in Western states, the Xeer legal system also demands a certain amount of specialization of different functions within the legal framework. Thus, one can find odayal (judges), xeer boggeyaal (jurists), guurtiyaal (detectives), garxajiyaal (attorneys), murkhaatiyal (witnesses) and waranle (police officers) to enforce the law.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer

(I know, Wikipedia ain't exactly the best resource in the world, still it can be useful).

Do you know why they replaced it with a stronger Federal Government? Because it didn't work out in running a country.

No, they did work. What they didn't do was control the Mercantilists like Hamilton (proto-Corporatists).

White slavers thought blacks were property, and they weren't stopped until a strong government (aka the Union, and latter the Federal government) beat the shit out of their little project by first defeating the Confederates and then much later on by passing laws against segregation.

Except we're not talking about a world that resembles the 19th Century. The US government is not there protecting people from backsliding into slavery.

Again, consider the nature of humans. They are competitive above all else.

I do consider human nature. Humans are fundamentally adaptive. They can adapt to situations, no matter how rational or irrational they find themselves in.

With no government to police them, they tend to go into every-man-for-himself.

They will defend their property. Which is how people behave now, its just they have farmed out the duties to a force (the police) who have routinely said they are not there to protect property. The overwhelming majority of people will peacefully negotiate for mutual advantage.

Would you like North Korea to have multiple competing forces now transferring WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, INCLUDING NUKES, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS to TERRORISTS LIKE AL-QAEDA? You know, the ones who hate our guts and would gladly kill us all? What's to stop Menta-Lee-Ill down the street from selling a nuclear sub to them with the support of his AC community, which desperately wants the money to keep their pathetic society afloat? Strong, sane governments.

How many people are going to arm another group that could easily use those weapons against them? Really, do you think that Al-Qaeda would give two 2 shits about the people of what used to be the United States if we weren't on their soil, killing their people?

Damn straight it won't be a utopia. It'll be likely a hell on earth. On my planet? I don't think so.

The thing is that you can live how you choose. If you and others band together and decide to form a government, more power to you. I will live apart and negotiate with whom I choose, associate with whom I choose. The moment you try to enforce said government on me, however, you gave up any moral right to your life not being taken from you.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

So why do we see 'checkpoints' charging tolls crop up so frequently in lawless areas?

How do they enforce those tolls? Not going to do too well when people stop using that road or start killing gang members. Again, if people try and use force, others will band together and use retaliatory force against them.

[Simon_Jester]

Then why doesn't this happen in places like Africa?

These are countries awash in AKs, there's no shortage of weapons. There's no shortage of people, either, people who are probably sick and tired of being preyed on. So why don't they rise up and smack down the oppressive bandits around them?