Somalia

[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.

[andyfox]

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.

[valenzuela]

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

[Borodog]

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.

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[elwoodblues]

[ 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??????

[Borodog]

[ 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?

[elwoodblues]

[ 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.