somalia = libertarian paradise? wtf
- Thread starter Paulfan05
- Start date
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
No police, only private security firms. Somalia is not anarchic in the anarcho-libertarian sense-they lack individual liberties and still have a vestige of a state.
Read these for better info-
http://www.mises.org/story/2066
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/kwiatkowski2.html
and do a search for "Somalia" on lewrockwell.com's search engine for yet more
RedStripe
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 1,824
Somalia is an interesting place. Most of the people who use 'lol somalia' as an attack on libertarianism are really just attacking those of us who believe that the state should be abolished altogether.
Somalia is actually better off now (based on the vast majority of metrics for standard of living) than it was under a central government up until the early 90s. Lots of the conflict in Somalia has been due to attempts by western powers and neighboring governments to install a central government in Somalia over the past ~10 years. Perhaps the only the Islamic Courts Union is perhaps the only true government-like entity to spring up spontaneously, and it of course is just a network of courts that use Islamic law to resolve conflicts. They are armed primarily to fight off Ethiopian military adventures in their land.
Sure, it's still Somalia. It's a third-world, African nation. But if you watch videos of people visiting Somalia, you will see that it is a relatively well-functioning society. White westerners certainly need to hire bodyguards to protect them while they visit (relatively cheap), but I've seen plenty of videos of market places, cell phone towers, and make-shift ports (most of the infrastructure has been destroyed). The point is - people can survive without a central state. In fact, they can have a reasonably safe and plentiful society (by African standards). They are better off now than before they had a government. Their biggest challenge is dealing with attempts by other countries to impose a central government and the US's attempts to brand them a "terrorist" state. It's not chaos over there. It's only chaos when someone tries to create a government, and people resist. Out in the countryside, it is fairly peaceful, and people live by their own customary tribal law that has been studied extensively and is quite interesting. People use social insurance via family ties and tribal relationships to resolve disputes, provide protection, and other services that might be half-heartedly provided by a central state, but are free to come and go as they please and are pretty much free to do as they please.
It's funny that leftists would make fun of Somalia when they themselves go on and on about the horrific after-effects of colonialism and neo-colonialism, yet want to blame Somalia's problems on the lack of western-imposed government and ignore the problems caused by the west's attempts to install a central government there! I'd rather live in Somalia than a lot of other countries in Africa, and to make fun of Somalia as an example of a stateless society (which it isn't truly) is to claim that all governments are like the North Korean government. I'd rather live in Somalia, or a stateless society, than an authoritarian system ANY DAY.... and an authoritarian brave new world is what we are marching towards this very moment.
Somalia is actually better off now (based on the vast majority of metrics for standard of living) than it was under a central government up until the early 90s. Lots of the conflict in Somalia has been due to attempts by western powers and neighboring governments to install a central government in Somalia over the past ~10 years. Perhaps the only the Islamic Courts Union is perhaps the only true government-like entity to spring up spontaneously, and it of course is just a network of courts that use Islamic law to resolve conflicts. They are armed primarily to fight off Ethiopian military adventures in their land.
Sure, it's still Somalia. It's a third-world, African nation. But if you watch videos of people visiting Somalia, you will see that it is a relatively well-functioning society. White westerners certainly need to hire bodyguards to protect them while they visit (relatively cheap), but I've seen plenty of videos of market places, cell phone towers, and make-shift ports (most of the infrastructure has been destroyed). The point is - people can survive without a central state. In fact, they can have a reasonably safe and plentiful society (by African standards). They are better off now than before they had a government. Their biggest challenge is dealing with attempts by other countries to impose a central government and the US's attempts to brand them a "terrorist" state. It's not chaos over there. It's only chaos when someone tries to create a government, and people resist. Out in the countryside, it is fairly peaceful, and people live by their own customary tribal law that has been studied extensively and is quite interesting. People use social insurance via family ties and tribal relationships to resolve disputes, provide protection, and other services that might be half-heartedly provided by a central state, but are free to come and go as they please and are pretty much free to do as they please.
It's funny that leftists would make fun of Somalia when they themselves go on and on about the horrific after-effects of colonialism and neo-colonialism, yet want to blame Somalia's problems on the lack of western-imposed government and ignore the problems caused by the west's attempts to install a central government there! I'd rather live in Somalia than a lot of other countries in Africa, and to make fun of Somalia as an example of a stateless society (which it isn't truly) is to claim that all governments are like the North Korean government. I'd rather live in Somalia, or a stateless society, than an authoritarian system ANY DAY.... and an authoritarian brave new world is what we are marching towards this very moment.
Definitely closer to anarchist than libertarian, and not overly paradise like. The anarchists point to Somalia because in some areas of the country after the government fell things improved. The education and healthcare systems improved. Businesses came in and competed to provide services to the people, causing prices to drop to extremely low levels in several industries. Some tribal courts were kept active by the people and financed by local businesses which saw it to their benefit to have a justice system in the populated areas.
There is a lot wrong as well, but the fact that things got better without any government is what people are pointing to. Even a libertarian or austrian economist can appreciate how when there was no government in the way prices dropped and conditions got better. I don't think anyone is saying we should use Somalia as a role model, but instead that we can learn something from what has gone on there over the years.
Last edited:
mport1
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 6,050
I don't want government police. I'd prefer to get rid of the state altogether and have a free market.
dannno
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 65,717
mediahasyou
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,386
They most likely got that idea from this board.
BuddyRey
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,172
Smoke the Liberty Tree
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2009
- Messages
- 184
Somalia is known to harbor many terrorist cells. We have troops stationed in Ethiopia who supply logistic supports to their troops who are trying to restore order to the country. Although yes it is in the US's plans to set up a democracy their, it is mostly to keep an eye on the Islamic radicalism that is spreading quickly through Somalia. Due to our messing with their affairs in the 90's it is a great spot for terrorist cells to recruit new people who have an already burgeoning hate for the West and our culture. And yes it is in Chaos over their. Just not the kind of Chaos most of us think of (everyone running around screaming, guns, etc.).
RedStripe
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 1,824
They are not "terrorists" in the sense that they are going to come over to the United States and blow up car bombs. They are followers of Islam who have become attracted to the radical ideology due to our interventions into their country, and our support for their enemies. If we left them alone and were nice to them, there wouldn't be this problem.
Anarchy or tribalism is the second worst? I'm surprised to hear such a comment on a board like this. I would think both could be great depending on the form they take. It also depends on the size of the area practicing it. Personally, I believe anarchy should, in a sense, be the unattainable goal of every libertarian. In order for it to work at scale individuals need to be socially and morally responsible. That makes it impossible, at least at this point in history. Still, anarchism is one of the few forms of government that places value on the individual rather than the collective, and I'm pretty surprised by such a comment on a mostly libertarian-minded forum.
I really hope you will elaborate on your comment. What is wrong with tribal systems or anarchy? Why do you think they are so bad?
Anarchists think we don't need a government. Libertarians think the purpose of government is to defend the civil rights of the people.
Societies succeed economically to the extent to which they enforce civil rights, especially the right to property ownership. Many leftist liberal policies actually take an active role in violating the property rights of the people. If we're faced with a choice between a leftist government that violates our rights intentionally, and no government, many of us would choose no government. But this is a false dichotomy. There's no reason why we can't establish a government that enforces our rights. That's the libertarian position.
Societies succeed economically to the extent to which they enforce civil rights, especially the right to property ownership. Many leftist liberal policies actually take an active role in violating the property rights of the people. If we're faced with a choice between a leftist government that violates our rights intentionally, and no government, many of us would choose no government. But this is a false dichotomy. There's no reason why we can't establish a government that enforces our rights. That's the libertarian position.
mport1
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 6,050
Sure there is. A government by its very nature must infringe on our rights. It makes no sense to say that we need to establish a monopoly organization who has the ability to initiate force and violate our rights to protect our rights.
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
That's the Libertarian position
, not the libertarian position. BIG difference. I wonder what you read that led you to the incorrect conclusion you've reached? 
Government is whoever has the most ability to inflict violence. Whether that's a group of elected politicians who follow a Constitution or a band of thugs, either way, whoever has the most ability to inflict violence IS the government. A government's sovereignty extends so far as its ability to inflict violence and hence to enforce its rules. Government is monopolistic by its nature. Two organizations cannot possibly both have the most ability to inflict violence in a given area. That's logically impossible. When two organizations are competing to see who has the most ability to inflict voilence in an area, that's called war. When the competition is over, there is a winner, and the winner becomes the government.
No matter what, there will always be a government. Even a man living alone on an island is his own government. He has more ability to inflict violence than anyone else, and hence he is sovereign. No matter where you go or what conditions prevail, there will always be one person or group of people who have the most ability to inflict violence.
The question is not whether or not this group exists. It always will. The question is, what's the best government that can exist, and how do we get it? The answer is that the ideal form of government is whatever form does the best job of enforcing civil rights.
Somalia's government is the local warlords and their soldiers / mercenaries.
Last edited:
What you speak of, as others have pointed out, is just one position. Libertarianism doesn't really have much in the way of core tenets. Instead it has a collection of loosely defined axioms about small government and liberty. And so, libertarians as a whole can disagree on nearly everything except for the general feel of those axioms. I think this is why Ayn Rand was so anti-libertarian. Her objectivist philosophy had a deep foundation. The conclusions come from drawn out arguments. To accept objectivism is to accept much more than liberty.
My point is, what you are saying is not "the" libertarian position, but just "a" libertarian position. I strongly disagree, but I am very glad to see any discussion of these things. I don't want government because I believe it will protect my liberties. I believe it may very well have the opposite effect. Instead I see it as an imperfect necessary evil. Anarchism, to me, is the ideal, perhaps unattainable, perhaps very far down the road. Anarchism without socially and morally responsible individuals is problematic, and so we need a small form of government to provide basic regulation and law. This is just my take. Just yet another libertarian perspective.
I think a lot of people around here seem to have very twisted ideas about what anarchism is. It comes in dozens of forms and has quite a lot of thought behind it. A common theme is the opposition to hierarchy. Creating a government can mean giving up some of your right to self determination. At the same time most anarchists have no problem with voluntarily giving up some rights. So, an anarchist who chooses to form or live in a society that has some hierarchy isn't necessarily a contradiction. What I'm trying to point out here is that not all anarchists are against all rules and order. Working with other people commonly involves creating rules and hierarchy. The idea is often to keep people having power over others at a minimum, and also to keep such arrangements as voluntary with provisions that allow the individual to leave if they feel it no longer is working for them. I only speak for myself, and I'm certain others will disagree with how I present everything. If anyone is interested I definitely recommend reading the Anarchist Theory FAQ to get a better idea of what anarchism is about:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
Last edited:
Similar threads
