Somalia

[Borodog]

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.

[Steven Bickford]

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.

[mjkidd]

[ 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?

[adanthar]

[ 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.

[mjkidd]

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.

[adanthar]

[ 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?

[mosdef]

[ 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.

[ShakeZula06]

[ 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 ]
People in horrible poverty because the government spent all the wealth it could get it's hands on to attempt not to collapse: Not a problem with anarchocapitalism or libertarian philosophy, it's a problem with statism and the after effects of it.

People with very high time preferences and no government resorting to looting, murdering, and other non-voluntary acts as well as the UN and US also attempting to institute governments that the people refuse to recognize the legitmacy of all the while escalting the violence: Not an example of anarchocapitalism. There is government intervention and more importantly, there is little cooperation, free trade, property rights, contract, etc. Even if the government wasn't involved that would put the "A" in there, but the "C" is most definetly not.

People eventually deciding the cooperation>>>conflict, beginning to respect property rights, contracts, division of labor which as led to foriegn investments and higher standards of living then under the state and under their statist nieghbors: A success for anarchocapitalism, free markets, libertarian philosophy, and Austrian economics.

Governments don't create wealth, markets do. The only argument for a state is that without certain regulations of the state in the market the market would produce horrible outcomes. Now we see a stateless society (in fact one that has been historically stateless with the exception of when western powers have attempted to force it on them) creating wealth without government facilliating it.

Gone are the doomsday theories that say government oversight is needed or else the market (and society) collapses. Hopefully now the statists will agree that ACism is possible and sustainable, something MANY of the statists have disagreed with in the past.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I don't fear it, I just don't feel like wasting my time debating Somalia if, when it turns out that Somalia's worse off than it was, the goalposts get moved.

[ QUOTE ]
Now we see a stateless society (in fact one that has been historically stateless with the exception of when western powers have attempted to force it on them) creating wealth without government facilliating it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somalia = good example? Yes or no?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Somalia = good example? Yes or no?


[/ QUOTE ]
Good example of what?