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?

[Leaky Eye]

[ 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.

[mosdef]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

[Copernicus]

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.

[adios]

[ 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.

[Exsubmariner]

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

So, when are you all going to leave?

[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.

[Metric]

Exit visas... What a concept.

[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.