Somalia

[adanthar]

[ 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?

[Zygote]

[ 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.

[adanthar]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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?

[Copernicus]

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.

[adanthar]

[ 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.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

as bad or better than this guy and this guy

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, if it actually doesnt count i dont know why you fear this dissent.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I agree its largely anarchistic. I dont agree its largely capitalistic. I dont agree its fully or none of either.

2) there is no such thing as a functional state. if in theory there were a functional state this obviously already implies it meets the mark. this is what we dispute. in addition, empirically, as far as history has shown, all "functional states" that you probably think of exist only in areas with the largest economic freedom throughout their history.

We are saying, however, that if there is more government control, whether democratic, communal, or dictatorially structured, ceteris paribus, they will be worse off.

*edit in bold thanks to Borodog

[Borodog]

Ceteris paribus.