Somalia
 

Wow: http://www.mises.org/story/2701

Transcript of an absolutely amazing talk about Somalia that summarizes:
[*] How the economic situation in Somalia is not only greatly improved relative to its prior condition under a central governent, but is greatly improved relative to other African nations that still have central goverments[*] explains why democracy does not and cannot work in Africa, and why western-style central governent set up by the colonial powers all quickly devolved in brutal dictatorships, bloodbaths and genocide[*] Explains the ancient stateless Somali systems for the private, stateless production ofblaw and orer, including a ubiquitous legal code, the Xeer, private insurance, private courts, judges, etc. The legal code is entirely property-rights based and oriented towars compensating the victim.[*] How the ongoing strife is created by UN attempts toforce a central government on the Somalis, and how the phenomenon of "warlordism" occurs as groups jockey violently for position to take control of the proposed central government that the UN keeps telling them is just around the corner

This is one of the best articles I've read in a long, long time. The legal study was done by a Dutch lawyer who married into a Somali clan and studied their customs for 12 years. I'm ordering his book today. Also, Stringham's Anarchy and the Law.

Re: Somalia
 

So before when there were articles coming out describing how crappy Somalia was, Somalia wasn't considered a fair example of AC. But now that someone writes something positive, it is all of a sudden fair game? Sorry guys, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
So before when there were articles coming out describing how crappy Somalia was, Somalia wasn't considered a fair example of AC. But now that someone writes something positive, it is all of a sudden fair game? Sorry guys, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, no matter how prosperous a stateless Somolia becomes, it can't ever serve as an example of how ACism is workable in the real world?

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So before when there were articles coming out describing how crappy Somalia was, Somalia wasn't considered a fair example of AC. But now that someone writes something positive, it is all of a sudden fair game? Sorry guys, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, no matter how prosperous a stateless Somolia becomes, it can't ever serve as an example of how ACism is workable in the real world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can it serve as an example *right now*, or can't it? Pick one.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Stringham's Anarchy and the Law.

[/ QUOTE ]

This book is quite good. I'll have to look into the book on Somali law...

Re: Somalia
 

Assuming the statistics in that article are accurate, it would seem that it certainly could serve as an example that anarchism could be good for a society. But why do I have to pick now? I don't think that there is enough information.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the statistics in that article are accurate, it would seem that it certainly could serve as an example that anarchism could be good for a society.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if they're not, and it's a terrible place to live, it can't?

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the statistics in that article are accurate, it would seem that it certainly could serve as an example that anarchism could be good for a society.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if they're not, and it's a terrible place to live, it can't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have evidence that the statistics in the article are fabricated? Please post such evidence; it would be of interest to me.

Re: Somalia
 

Would you move there?

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the statistics in that article are accurate, it would seem that it certainly could serve as an example that anarchism could be good for a society.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if they're not, and it's a terrible place to live, it can't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have evidence that the statistics in the article are fabricated? Please post such evidence; it would be of interest to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I asked.

Re: Somalia
 

adanthar,

My viewpoint is that if the article Boro linked to is accurate (and I have no reason to doubt its truthfulness), and the conditions in Somolia continue to improve in the absence of government, it would be powerful evidence that ACism can benefit a country. That is all. I can't really respond to you because you haven't really made a coherent point. I'd be glad to discuss this topic with you if choose to write intelligently about it.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is all. I can't really respond to you because you haven't really made a coherent point. I'd be glad to discuss this topic with you if choose to write intelligently about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So before when there were articles coming out describing how crappy Somalia was, Somalia wasn't considered a fair example of AC. But now that someone writes something positive, it is all of a sudden fair game? Sorry guys, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

One more time: is Somalia a good example *right now* or not? We can even assume that the article is accurate, as long as you allow everyone else to quote the 38757823785789279832 equally accurate articles that show how much of a hellhole the place is.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
So before when there were articles coming out describing how crappy Somalia was, Somalia wasn't considered a fair example of AC. But now that someone writes something positive, it is all of a sudden fair game? Sorry guys, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, another Somalia post.

SB, you have a point here that there is some selective definition going on regarding Somalia in that, to the extent that things are generally bad in Somalia ACists are reluctant to hand their hat there, but to the extent that things are generally better there ACists may be eager to claim success.

The selectivism may not be as contradictory as you are suggesting though. We must differentiate between the level of "success" in the society and the change in the level before/after centralized government.

The level of succes in the society is low by most standards. I believe this level is constrained by the lack of resources and cultural attitudes in the region, and no level of government intervention, from 0 to complete, will "fix" this "problem" and make the society look appealing to a westerner who is used to what we have. In that regard, if the society is "hopelessly unsavable" to a westerner then observing the conditions in the society are "very bad" is neither a condemnation nor support for one system of another. However, observing that the removal of government has improved things does not mean that one thinks the improved product is "up to snuff" in the western sense, and is a valid observation that less government is good.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
One more time: is Somalia a good example *right now* or not? We can even assume that the article is accurate, as long as you allow everyone else to quote the 38757823785789279832 equally accurate articles that show how much of a hellhole the place is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so, see my other post.

Somalia may be a good example of how less government makes a place better. It is not a good example of how good a place can become with less government.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is all. I can't really respond to you because you haven't really made a coherent point. I'd be glad to discuss this topic with you if choose to write intelligently about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So before when there were articles coming out describing how crappy Somalia was, Somalia wasn't considered a fair example of AC. But now that someone writes something positive, it is all of a sudden fair game? Sorry guys, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

One more time: is Somalia a good example *right now* or not? We can even assume that the article is accurate, as long as you allow everyone else to quote the 38757823785789279832 equally accurate articles that show how much of a hellhole the place is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already said that I don't think that there is enough information. It seems that Somalia is currently an social and economic experiment in progress, and I just don't think that the results of the experiment can be judged yet. Things will be clearer in another 5-10 years or so. But one thing is clear -- Somalia didn't become a hellhole because of anarchy, but rather because of a war due to factions fighting to assume governmental powers. If Somalia is able to recover and prosper under anarchy, that would truly be remarkable.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One more time: is Somalia a good example *right now* or not? We can even assume that the article is accurate, as long as you allow everyone else to quote the 38757823785789279832 equally accurate articles that show how much of a hellhole the place is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so, see my other post.

Somalia may be a good example of how less government makes a place better. It is not a good example of how good a place can become with less government.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make a fair point about selectivity. The problem is that the conclusion would, at best, be that less *Somalian* government makes the place better. In other words, if the conclusions bear out, anarchy might be better for Somalia than what passed for the previous government it had. There are a few other governments around the world where this is unquestionably true, but that's also not a positive statement.

Having said all of that, the question of whether Somalia is a good example of AC or not still remains unanswered.

edit: BTW, I'd also like to point out here that Somalia has a very strong clan structure, and, in the absence of a centralized government for the entire country, has basically resorted to its traditional type of clan-based feudalism - within the clan, all major decisions are made by the elders, the clans negotiate on their own legal system, etc. Does this still count as anarchy? Serious question.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One more time: is Somalia a good example *right now* or not? We can even assume that the article is accurate, as long as you allow everyone else to quote the 38757823785789279832 equally accurate articles that show how much of a hellhole the place is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so, see my other post.

Somalia may be a good example of how less government makes a place better. It is not a good example of how good a place can become with less government.

[/ QUOTE ]

When non-ACists make people choose between living in Somalia vs. living in the USA as an example of how things are working, its like asking if you would rather be crippled and have a hot wife vs. having all your physical functionality and having an ugly wife.

Almost all people will chose having the ugly wife, but this in no way is an endorsement of having a preference for ugly women. It just means that other variables outweigh it.

I would rather live in Somalia than many other craphole African countries that have other similarities. But no way I would live there over the USA.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One more time: is Somalia a good example *right now* or not? We can even assume that the article is accurate, as long as you allow everyone else to quote the 38757823785789279832 equally accurate articles that show how much of a hellhole the place is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so, see my other post.

Somalia may be a good example of how less government makes a place better. It is not a good example of how good a place can become with less government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding, triple gold star.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is all. I can't really respond to you because you haven't really made a coherent point. I'd be glad to discuss this topic with you if choose to write intelligently about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So before when there were articles coming out describing how crappy Somalia was, Somalia wasn't considered a fair example of AC. But now that someone writes something positive, it is all of a sudden fair game? Sorry guys, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

One more time: is Somalia a good example *right now* or not? We can even assume that the article is accurate, as long as you allow everyone else to quote the 38757823785789279832 equally accurate articles that show how much of a hellhole the place is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somalia is not an example of pure anarcho capitalism since there are intervening factions and considering the past history's left overs. In addition, effective measures of private property have not fully arisen.

What we do know from this case is the effect of removing government control/planning and freeing individuals on a large basis.

Further, no one ever said Somalia is not a [censored] hole. All they said was they were better off without government than with. Why dont you or anyone else try and dispute a point on this line?

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is all. I can't really respond to you because you haven't really made a coherent point. I'd be glad to discuss this topic with you if choose to write intelligently about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So before when there were articles coming out describing how crappy Somalia was, Somalia wasn't considered a fair example of AC. But now that someone writes something positive, it is all of a sudden fair game? Sorry guys, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

One more time: is Somalia a good example *right now* or not? We can even assume that the article is accurate, as long as you allow everyone else to quote the 38757823785789279832 equally accurate articles that show how much of a hellhole the place is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somalia is not an example of pure anarcho capitalism since there are intervening factions and considering the past history's left overs.

What we do know from this case is the effect of removing government control/planning and freeing individuals on a large basis.

Further, no one ever said Somalia is not a [censored] hole. All they said was they were better off without government than with. Why dont you or anyone else try and dispute a point on this line?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why dont you or anyone else try and prove that it is "lack of government" that is responsible for the improvements? Correlation != causation.

One of the most important influences in Somalia and most likely largely responsible for improvement is barely two years old, and that is the emerging dominance of the UIC and Saudi financial support in hopes of converting the country to radical Islam.

Unless and until there is some credible way to link improvement with lack of government the jury hasnt even begun deliberating.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
What we do know from this case is the effect of removing government control/planning and freeing individuals on a large basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we *can* refute this part. Gotcha. Okay:

1)What government control? Was Somalia's government ever anything more than half assed?

2)Freeing individuals in what way? They're still in a clan system employed by and dependent upon any one of a thousand warlords. Is this neo-feudalism a good example of anarchy, then?

[ QUOTE ]
Further, no one ever said Somalia is not a [censored] hole. All they said was they were better off without government than with. Why dont you or anyone else try and dispute a point on this line?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can we refute this without people claiming that Somalia doesn't count? Yes or no?

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One more time: is Somalia a good example *right now* or not? We can even assume that the article is accurate, as long as you allow everyone else to quote the 38757823785789279832 equally accurate articles that show how much of a hellhole the place is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so, see my other post.

Somalia may be a good example of how less government makes a place better. It is not a good example of how good a place can become with less government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding, triple gold star.

[/ QUOTE ]

Err. Showing AC is better than a specific central government in no way demonstrates that AC is either good for society or superior to any other form of government. It would have to be the worst political system in the history of mankind to not be better than some governments.

Having said that, obviously ACists are going to study pockets of anarchy since they have so few opportunities to gather data on anarchy. This is the correct thing for them to be doing.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, if the conclusions bear out, anarchy might be better for Somalia than what passed for the previous government it had. There are a few other governments around the world where this is unquestionably true, but that's also not a positive statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also true. But observing that an example supports a concept is worthwhile even if it fails to prove a concept (so long as you don't claim proof).

[ QUOTE ]
Having said all of that, the question of whether Somalia is a good example of AC or not still remains unanswered.

[/ QUOTE ]

As discussed, it could be consider a good example of AC within the framework and limitations already in place. There is no such thing as a "good exampleo of AC" period. AC does not claim to produce any defintive outcome regardless of the scenario to which it is applied. In fact, the coercion-free nature of anarchy implies that you will get a different outcome for every group to which anarchy is applied based on the characteristics of the group. The freedom for the group to develop as it naturally would unimpeded vitually guarantees different outcomes. Obverving a single outcome and saying "is that a good example of an anarchy outcome" is a senseless pursuit.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I'd also like to point out here that Somalia yas a very strong clan structure, and, in the absence of a centralized government for the entire country, has basically resorted to its traditional type of clan-based feudalism - within the clan, all major decisions are made by the elders, the clans negotiate on their own legal system, etc. Does this still count as anarchy? Serious question.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the cultural clan structure includes significant use of violent coercive force then it probably counts as anarchy (the absence of government) but not ACism (which requires the recognition of property rights). I will retract this if a more knowledgable actual ACists disagrees.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, obviously ACists are going to study pockets of anarchy since they have so few opportunities to gather data on anarchy. This is the correct thing for them to be doing if you're results-oriented and/or think anecdotal evidence is useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Somalia
 

Its interesting that the mises article declared itself to be too short to address the legal/enforcement system.

this does

While the OP article is quick to credit the improvements with the stateless society, it doesnt take "credit" for this: page 7 "Amidst this confusion, the choice of applicable law in any given case is largely drven by two factors: first, where the self-interest of the stronger party to the dispute is served; and second, how a decision that will preserve security and peaceful inter-clan realtions can be reached. These factors have limited the equality of all Somali citizens before the law...."

Sounds an awful lot like the 2+2 "statists" position on what AC jurisprudence would devolve to.

To be fair, much of this is attributable to outside influences and things may settle down. However, in forecasting the future of xeer, the article also notes this about the elders, who traditionally were the de facto judges:

"However, to increase their effectiveness, elders want an independent source of revenue - possibly from the government or from business groups - that will redue their need to undertake shahad, or solicitation of persona financial contributions from their clan members".

Sniff sniff. Yup, smells like taxation to me.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
Further, no one ever said Somalia is not a [censored] hole. All they said was they were better off without government than with. Why dont you or anyone else try and dispute a point on this line?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bar was set pretty low for improvement in Somalia methinks.

Re: Somalia
 

Exit Visas and one way tickets to Somalia for all ACist's on this board.......

So, when are you all going to leave?

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]

1)What government control? Was Somalia's government ever anything more than half assed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't name one government thats not half-assed. Can you?

THIS is the whole point!

[ QUOTE ]

2)Freeing individuals in what way? They're still in a clan system employed by and dependent upon any one of a thousand warlords. Is this neo-feudalism a good example of anarchy, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

The "warlords" mostly exist from propping up by foreign governments for political motives. Aside, people have more freedom of commerce which accounts for the rise in prosperity.

[ QUOTE ]


Can we refute this without people claiming that Somalia doesn't count? Yes or no?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes if the people claiming Somalia doesnt count aren't showing why this is so. No if the people claiming Somalia doesnt count are effectively showing why this is so.

Re: Somalia
 

Exit visas... What a concept.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1)What government control? Was Somalia's government ever anything more than half assed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't name one government thats not half-assed. Can you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without bothering with the hyperbole, do you think this guy was better or worse at governing than the average Western state?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2)Freeing individuals in what way? They're still in a clan system employed by and dependent upon any one of a thousand warlords. Is this neo-feudalism a good example of anarchy, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

The "warlords" mostly exist from propping up by foreign governments for political motives. Aside, people have more freedom of commerce which accounts for the rise in prosperity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somalian warlords are propped up by foreign governments? That's news to me and to Somalia. Perhaps you mean the Ethiopian and somewhat US-backed Somali government, but that's just one particular set of warlords that has lately been backed over another set. Aside from that, nobody's been propping any of them up from Blackhawk Down onwards - there are plenty of native Somalian warlords to go around.

But let's get back to the point:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can we refute this without people claiming that Somalia doesn't count? Yes or no?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes if the people claiming Somalia doesnt count aren't showing why this is so. No if the people claiming Somalia doesnt count are effectively showing why this is so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I simply don't feel like having to cite a bunch more sources on Somalia without running into somebody pulling the "but if it's really bad, it doesn't count" line. So, if we're going to talk about Somalia's successful transition to anarchy, I'd like to establish the ground rule that Somalia is, at the very least:

1)largely anarcho-capitalist;

2)claimed by AC-ers to be a more successful territory than it would otherwise have been with a functional state.

If you can't agree on those ground rules, posting this article is worthless.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to establish the ground rule that Somalia is, at the very least:

1)largely anarcho-capitalist;

2)claimed by AC-ers to be a more successful territory than it would otherwise have been with a functional state.

If you can't agree on those ground rules, posting this article is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree with 1. Where's the capital?

Re: Somalia
 

I don't think its unfair to say that a "warlord" that has aligned his clan with the UIC in order to receive Saudi aid has been "propped up" by the Saudi's, and the same for "warlords" that have aligned themselves with the interim government, which has received the support of the UN, US and others.

More importantly, I agree with your necessary conditions but dont think the first is true, at least not yet (but if the ACists want to declare it to be so, let them). To be consistent with their claim that substantial but incomplete de-regulation of utilities cant be used as an example of the failure of competition, they can't claim that "AC with the financial support of states" is an example of the success of AC.

Even if 1 is true, there is of course, no ability to substantiate whether things would be better, worse or the same if it werent "largely AC". Experiments (even social experiments) need repetition for conclusions to be valid. I doubt that they can come up with a comparable experiment where the only significant difference in the situations is that the indigenous people are not ACist.

Also, implicit in 2 is that Somalia has been "largely AC enough" for the impact of the prior years interventions/aide to have diminished substantially in influence. There hasn't been, particularly on statistics like life expectancy and infant mortality improvements.

Cliff notes: based on Adanthar's legitimate requirements, the mises article's crediting improvement in Somalia to AC is unsupported.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think its unfair to say that a "warlord" that has aligned his clan with the UIC in order to receive Saudi aid has been "propped up" by the Saudi's, and the same for "warlords" that have aligned themselves with the interim government, which has received the support of the UN, US and others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I agree that they've been propped up to some degree since early '06. Prior to that, though, nobody was doing anything in Somalia for a full dozen years; even famine relief was pretty limited compared to other places in Africa. In other words, I want to make it clear that the warlord feudalist conditions in Somalia from '93-'06 did not arise due to outside interference.

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, I agree with your necessary conditions but dont think the first is true, at least not yet (but if the ACists want to declare it to be so, let them). To be consistent with their claim that substantial but incomplete de-regulation of utilities cant be used as an example of the failure of competition, they can't claim that "AC with the financial support of states" is an example of the success of AC.

Even if 1 is true, there is of course, no ability to substantiate whether things would be better, worse or the same if it werent "largely AC". Experiments (even social experiments) need repetition for conclusions to be valid. I doubt that they can come up with a comparable experiment where the only significant difference in the situations is that the indigenous people are not ACist.

Also, implicit in 2 is that Somalia has been "largely AC enough" for the impact of the prior years interventions/aide to have diminished substantially in influence. There hasn't been, particularly on statistics like life expectancy and infant mortality improvements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

Re: Somalia
 

The former government was a disgrace. It's easy to show improvement in statistics when, for example, only 4 people in 1,000 have a radio at the beginning of the period of improvement. In an earlier period when there was a central government, literacy was improved from 5% (in 1969) to 55% (in the mid-1980s), largely because of a government-implemented literacy campaign. A government can do good things and it can do bad things.

Re: Somalia
 

Im confused, so is there AC on Somalia? Yes or no? If no then why bother posting the article.

Re: Somalia
 

Andy,

Did you read the article?

[ QUOTE ]
Another even more comprehensive study published last year by Benjamin Powell of the Independent Institute, concludes: "We find that Somalia's living standards have improved generally … not just in absolute terms, but also relative to other African countries since the collapse of the Somali central government."
<font color="white"> . </font>
Somalia's pastoral economy is now stronger than that of either neighboring Kenya or Ethiopia. It is the largest exporter of livestock of any East African country. Telecommunications have burgeoned in Somalia; a call from a mobile phone is cheaper in Somalia than anywhere else in Africa. A small number of international investors are finding that the level of security of property and contract in Somalia warrants doing business there. Among these companies are Dole, BBC, the courier DHL, British Airways, General Motors, and Coca Cola, which recently opened a large bottling plant in Mogadishu. A 5-star Ambassador Hotel is operating in Hargeisa, and three new universities are fully functional: Amoud University (1997) in Borama, and Mogadishu University (1997), and University of Benadir (2002) in Mogadishu.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides, the mantra is that there should be no improvement at all, regardless of the nature of the previous government. Lack of a central government is a one-way ticket to bloodbath, perpetual war of all against all by people turned mindless thieving killer zombies. No law, no courts, no rights, no production, nothing except theft and rape and murder and perpetual carnage. Claiming that economic improvement in the absence of government is no big deal just because the former government was bad is nothing less than a repudiation of everything that statists claim about anarchy. Any government is supposed to be better than no government.

It appears that no government in Somalia is not just better than the former government there, but also better than the current ones that surround it.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
Im confused, so is there AC on Somalia? Yes or no? If no then why bother posting the article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because regardless of whether or not Somalia is "AC", the article refutes a number of tired arguments against stateless societies.

Plus, it's interesting.

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, the mantra is that there should be no improvement at all, regardless of the nature of the previous government. Lack of a central government is a one-way ticket to bloodbath, perpetual war of all against all by people turned mindless thieving killer zombies. No law, no courts, no rights, no production, nothing except theft and rape and murder and perpetual carnage. Claiming that economic improvement in the absence of government is no big deal just because the former government was bad is nothing less than a repudiation of everything that statists claim about anarchy. Any government is supposed to be better than no government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the best example of a strawman argument I've seen on this forum, and that's saying quite a lot.

Who, exactly, has argued that a stateless society will be have worse results than a government REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT??????

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, the mantra is that there should be no improvement at all, regardless of the nature of the previous government. Lack of a central government is a one-way ticket to bloodbath, perpetual war of all against all by people turned mindless thieving killer zombies. No law, no courts, no rights, no production, nothing except theft and rape and murder and perpetual carnage. Claiming that economic improvement in the absence of government is no big deal just because the former government was bad is nothing less than a repudiation of everything that statists claim about anarchy. Any government is supposed to be better than no government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the best example of a strawman argument I've seen on this forum, and that's saying quite a lot.

Who, exactly, has argued that a stateless society will be have worse results than a government REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT??????

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas Hobbes?

So are you claiming that it won't be?

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...g/Itsatrap.jpg

Re: Somalia
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, the mantra is that there should be no improvement at all, regardless of the nature of the previous government. Lack of a central government is a one-way ticket to bloodbath, perpetual war of all against all by people turned mindless thieving killer zombies. No law, no courts, no rights, no production, nothing except theft and rape and murder and perpetual carnage. Claiming that economic improvement in the absence of government is no big deal just because the former government was bad is nothing less than a repudiation of everything that statists claim about anarchy. Any government is supposed to be better than no government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the best example of a strawman argument I've seen on this forum, and that's saying quite a lot.

Who, exactly, has argued that a stateless society will be have worse results than a government REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT??????

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas Hobbes?



[/ QUOTE ]

Hobbes argued that regardless of the form of government the results are better with government than without???? I'd like to see where he said that (I very well might be wrong, but that's not what I remember from the Leviathan.) Hobbes certainly isn't in favor of unrestrained competition, but I don't recall him saying that ANY government is better than no government as you suggest.

[ QUOTE ]
So are you claiming that it won't be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Won't be what? I do not claim, nor have I ever claimed, that the results of no government will be be worse than any possible government. Anyone who would make such a claim would have to have their head examined.