[ 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.