RoR: Forum

Heh - that sounds like some science fiction books I've read over the years... ;-)

Post 21

Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 11:40am

Anarchism actually does work... but only as long as you stay with science fiction.

Post 22

Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 12:11pm

Steve, in Cairo in 1600 CE (c. 1000 AH), a merchant had his choice of four different courts, each practicing a different school of law. It is not science fiction; it is history.

More to the point, Cairo was an open city: no moat; no alligators.

A bright guy like you ought to do more reading.

Post 23

Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 1:04pm

Michael, a bright guy like you should do more thinking, then you wouldn't believe everything you read just because it seems to support your anarchy fantasies.

Somalia still exists, Michael, how's their absence of alligator-filled moats working for you?
---------------------

As is too often the case, your posts waste the time of those who take them seriously. For example, I looked up Cairo in 1600 in Wikipedia and it really doesn't look like the anarchist's imaginary picture of a political utopia:

Egyptian lands [during this period] were divided into four classes: the sultan's domain, fiefs, land for the maintenance of the army, and lands settled on religious foundations. [sounds like eminent domain run amok to me]

It was the practice of the Sublime Porte to change the governor of Egypt at very short intervals, after a year or less. The third governor, Ahmad Pasha, hearing that orders for his execution had come from Constantinople, endeavoured to make himself an independent ruler and had coins struck in his own name. His schemes were frustrated by two of the emirs whom he had imprisoned and who, escaping from their confinement, attacked him in his bath and killed him.

The constant changes in the government seem to have caused the army to get out of control at an early period of the Ottoman occupation, and at the beginning of the 17th century mutinies became common; in 1604, governor Ibrahim Pasha was murdered by the soldiers, and his head set on the Bab Zuwaylah. The reason for these mutinies was the attempt made by successive pashas to put a stop to the extortion called the tulbah, a forced payment exacted by the troops from the inhabitants of the country by the fiction of debts requiring to be discharged, which led to grievous ill-usage.

In 1609, something like civil war broke out between the army and the pasha, who had loyal regiments on his side and the Bedouins. The soldiers went so far as to choose a sultan, and to provisionally divide the regions of Cairo between them. They were defeated by the governor Mahommed Pasha, who, on February 5, 1610, entered Cairo in triumph, executed the ringleaders, and banished others to Yemen. Historians speak of this event as a second conquest of Egypt for the Ottomans. A great financial reform was then effected by Muhammad Pasha, who readjusted the burdens imposed on the different communities of Egypt in accordance with their means.

Post 24

Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 3:20pm

Again, I cite my source: Making Big Money in 1600: The Life and Times of Isma'il Abu Taqiyya by Nelly Hanna.

... a member of our faculty since 1991. Moreover, we can proudly claim Nelly not just as a scholar but also as an alumna, since she received both her B.A. and M.A. degrees from the American University in Cairo. She is the 2004 winner of the AUC Excellence in Research and Creative Endeavors Award, and currently serves as Chair of the Department of ARIC [Arab and Islamic Civilizations].
http://academic.aucegypt.edu/bulletins/fb/?cat=31

Hanna is professor of Arabic studies at the American University in Cairo. She is the author or editor of a number of books and articles including In Praise of Books: A Cultural History of Cairo�s Middle Class, Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century (AUC Press, 2004).
http://www.aucpress.com/t-AuthorDetails.aspx?ID=422

Hanna's biography of Abu Taqiyya mentions the struggles between the poltical and military rulers. That conflict distracted them both and allowed freedom of action for the merchants. As I said, the merchants built and rebuilt large sections of the city. They bought the land one parcel at a time, respecting property rights.

Hanna also tells of Abu Taqiyya perhaps beiing forced into loans and partnerships with government officials. It is all of a piece. You should read the book.

I found the work via another history of entrepreneurship, The Invention of Enterprise, a new book, that I am reviewing for The Libertarian Papers of the Von Mises Institute.

If you wish to challenge Hanna's scholarship, you are free to do so. You will have to do more than quote the Wikipedia. Speaking of that, though, you did not quote this:

Cairo's political influence diminished significantly after the Ottomans supplanted Mamluk power over Egypt in 1517. Ruling from Istanbul, Sultan Selim I relegated Egypt to a mere province, with Cairo as its capital.[29] For this reason, the history of Cairo during Ottoman times is often described as inconsequential, especially in comparison to other time periods.[25][30][31] However, during the 16th and 17th centuries, Cairo remained an important economic and cultural centre. Although no longer on the spice route, the city facilitated the transportation of Yemeni coffee and Indian textiles, primarily to Anatolia, North Africa, and the Balkans. Cairene merchants were instrumental in bringing goods to the barren Hejaz, especially during the annual hajj to Mecca.[31][32] It was during this same period that al-Azhar University reached the predominance among Islamic schools that it continues to hold today;[33][34] pilgrims on their way to hajj often attested to the superiority of the institution, which had become associated with Egypt's body of Islamic scholars.[35] By the 16th century, Cairo also had high-rise apartment buildings where the two lower floors were for commercial and storage purposes and the multiple stories above them were rented out to tenants.[36]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo

(In fact, Steve, you did not actually cite which WIikipedia article you quoted from. )

It was at this time that Abu Taqiyya effectively became what we would regard as a millionaire - standards vary - despite (or perhaps because of) this apparent "decline" in central authority.

Myself, I found his life story fascinating on many levels.

Post 25

Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 4:17pm

Michael,

I still don't see the Cairo of the early 1600's as a place I'd hold up as a desirable political model. And, I don't know what you find to be exemplary in that description of Cairo you quoted in your last post.

Here is the Wikipedia article I copy-pasted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt_Eyalet#Early_Ottoman_period

Post 26

Sunday, May 22, 2011 - 12:54am

Steve, it is not a desirable political model - if I understand what you intend by that. The Ottoman Empire was always weak in the sense that we would call "constitutional."

What I found fascinating was the story of a merchant in his time and place. The social context was surprising to me - the book was informative - from several aspects.

Women had more rights in that time and place than did their sisters in England and France. They had their own wealth. They could sue (and be sued) in court. One case involved a female slave being sued. They had rights and legal standing. That is interesting.

I had no idea about the four different courts before I read the book. That was not what brought me here. It was the story of coffee, actually. That was told in the chapter "Entrepreneurship in Middle Eastern History" by Timur Kuran in The Invention of Enterprise. In that chapter, Kuran examined the cultural impediments to business. Islamic law does not recognize non-corporeal beings. So, there were no corporations. The story of coffee is in that mercantile context.

And there were those four schools of law with their courts. You may not approve of that, but it really existed then and there.

I find trade and commerce interesting. The stories (ahem: "case studies") have many lessons applicable to our time and place. What I cited above was to contrast with your story - true, also - about the struggles between the Mamluks and Pashas. Trade and commerce go on, even in a "declining" civilization. To wit: ... However, during the 16th and 17th centuries, Cairo remained an important economic and cultural centre. ... the city facilitated the transportation of Yemeni coffee and Indian textiles ... al-Azhar University reached the predominance ... Cairo also had high-rise apartment buildings ... "

The reason I posted this here in "Alligators" is that Cairo prospered to whatever extent specifically because it was not barricaded behind moats and alligators, but open to trade and commerce.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/22, 1:01am)

Post 27

Sunday, May 22, 2011 - 9:54am

Michael,

I wish I'd understood what you were saying to start with. I could have explained that "alligators and moats" means only that people wanting to come in, do so through the front door and not sneak in through a back window. It is not an economic limitation on free trade or commerce.

Post 28

Monday, May 23, 2011 - 5:04am

Steve, your analogy to entering via the front door rather than the windows is easy to understand. If America is a "house" then literally and truly the government becomes the "despot" or "master" of the house.

But we really have no "doors" or "windows." If Americans have a right to export cotton from Charleston, South Carolina, without permission from the federal government, then other people have the right to enter Augusta, Georgia, as well. It is true that you cannot steal a shipload of cotton and send it out through the port on the claim of "free trade."; and neither can we tolerate an invasion of people who will arrive there, and then just settle in by displacing the present occupants i.e., by stealing their land - well, unless, they are Native Americans... but that's a different issue (I think).

That is not the case now with the border in Arizona. The immigrants are only passing through on their way to jobs elsewhere. I have worked with "illegals" here in Ann Arbor. To limit the entry of people is no different from preventing the import of commodities and manufactured goods. It is a violation of your right to hire whomever you want.

You say that you have no jobs to offer. Fine. Other people do. To prevent them from hiring people is to intervene in a contract that is not your business.

Post 29

Monday, May 23, 2011 - 9:50am