somalia = libertarian paradise? wtf

I keep hearing this falsehood that libertarianism and anarchy are two completely different things. Lew Rockwell is an anarchist yet he calls himself a libertarian. Pure libertarianism and anarchy (or anarcho-capitalism to be more specific) are one in the same.
 
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.

Sorry to copy, but this is an excellent post.
 
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.

I'll take a Somalian mini-government over the US govt any day. The Somalian strongmen only demand about 5% tax tops. Compare that to taxes in the land of the free *hearty laugh*

As for there will always be a government, thats just not true. I can give examples from history:

Medieval Ireland: Anarchic. Very successful society, perhaps the most advanced and prosperous in Europe.

Iceland (around year 1000 maybe): Almost completely anarchic, they had a system of private law which lasted about 300 years. Mind you these people were your typical brutal barbarians. How long did the American republic last before descending into tyranny? Less than 100 years imo.

"Wild" West: Government existed in name only. Lower per capita crime rate than the east coast. Private arbitration.

Somalia: No central government. Vast improvements in standard of living after Barre's regime was brought down. US and UN continue to cause violence there as the various "warlords" compete to own the new government and thus be able to continue their crimes of looting and killing in a legitimized way. Private law via the Xeer.

* Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse?
* Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent.
* Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4.
* Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none.
* Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9.
* Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100.
* Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26.
* Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8.
* Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2.
* Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5.
* Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9.
* TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7.
* Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600.
 
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?

What is in Somalia now is an improvement over what was there before, but what was there before was one of the worst possible forms of government.

When the Vietnamese communists invaded Cambodia and stopped the Khmer Rouge genocide, the situation in Cambodia improved markedly. Does that mean we should all hope to be invaded by Vietnamese communists?
 
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 :cool::D

please. Somalia is as close to an anarcho-libertarian society as has ever existed. The problem is that ALL power vacuums rapidly evolve into rule by strongmen. There is always someone willing to brutalize someone else for what they have or to gain power over them, and there is always people willing to serve the strongmen. Always.
 
5% 'tax' not for roads, or utilities, or courts, just 'protection'. Protection from what? From not paying the tax.

Yay Liberty!
 
please. Somalia is as close to an anarcho-libertarian society as has ever existed. The problem is that ALL power vacuums rapidly evolve into rule by strongmen. There is always someone willing to brutalize someone else for what they have or to gain power over them, and there is always people willing to serve the strongmen. Always.

You forgot to address the points brought up in the articles mentioned. Big fail, but try again!
 
What is in Somalia now is an improvement over what was there before, but what was there before was one of the worst possible forms of government.

When the Vietnamese communists invaded Cambodia and stopped the Khmer Rouge genocide, the situation in Cambodia improved markedly. Does that mean we should all hope to be invaded by Vietnamese communists?

I agree with what you are saying, but you may be dodging the point a little. Things were bad there, and for many people still are bad. I think the more interesting thing here is how things changed. The way that many businesses came in with a lot of competition and built up infrastructure and charged really low rates for service provides some evidence for the effectiveness of free market principals. The way that people came together to organize other things such as the courts in some areas is another example. Nobody is saying things are perfect there. I think the big thing here is some evidence that even without government it is possible for much of society to keep functioning, and a demonstration that at least in the early stages, the free market principals are working.
 
This is the liberal talking point being pushed around some blogs, but isn't Somalia more like anarchy? They even think libertarians want no police, I still want police, what about you?

Saw this myself on a site yesterday, with a bunch of astonishingly ignorant liberals having a good laugh - not that they know anything about the present political situation in Somalia, they just think its a disease-ridden third world country with a lot of starving, desperate brown people...yet that doesn't seem to factor into the fact that they would use it as the backdrop to laugh at libertarians.

I'm sitting there wondering what kind of mindset does that - they think a country is in chaos, plagued by disease, civil war and death - but they're sitting there giggling away at it while praising Obama.

More and more, this kind of "liberal" to me means "fascist".
 
Last edited:
This is the liberal talking point being pushed around some blogs, but isn't Somalia more like anarchy? They even think libertarians want no police, I still want police, what about you?

I don't want police!
 
That vid is just a hit piece. ...and aren't the warlords in somolia funded by governments?
 
Back
Top