Or possibly they are educated, and merely disagree with libertarian philosophy and enjoy pointing out what they consider to be its flaws.
Excuse me, what?
I infer from earlier posts that he’s saying that Somalia is better off not having a government, as per the libertarian screed, and the problems they’re having are just because they didn’t do it right, in that they don’t have the right attitude about property rights.
Naw, it’s simpler than that. People who don’t like libertarianism and want to ‘prove’ it’s wrong basically use Somalia as a strawman argument…‘See, Libertarianism doesn’t work because…SOMALIA!!’. Except Somalia wasn’t a libertarian society, nor an attempt at a libertarian society, nor did it come close to any ideals of a libertarian society. It’s a strawman argument…like your post here. They didn’t do it right? 
Simple. But, since there haven’t actually been any libertarian societies nor real attempts at forming one on a large scale, I realize that anti-libertarian types need something to hang their hats on for how bad it would be. Plus…AYN RAND IS THE SUXOR!!!1!!
Got all that.
I’ve never been to Somalia, but besides inadequately developed property rights, seems to me a major problem is non-Somalians dangling the prize of government above the heads of rival factions. If there were no outside influence promising support of potential govt, there would be no reason for factions to war with eachother in order to gain hegemony. This struggle is costly and inefficient, but as long as the carrot is out there (UN supported govt with powers of taxation and US firepower to back up said taxation), potential reward exists, therefore there is increased violence and destruction of property in Somalia.
Has anyone ever wondered what it looks like to have ideology completely overwhelm any perception of reality? Well, here it is.
In this world, Somalia’s real problem is that the US launches one or two military raids a year, perhaps involving a dozen people or so, to do something about one or two guys. Yes, this is the real problem with Somalia, not the warlords who carved up the country twenty years ago, not the lack of an educational system or functioning economy that makes farmers into pirates, and not the gross mismanagement of resources that lead to periodic famines. No, my friends, in Ron Paul world, all of Somalia’s problems relate to the fact that a zodiac boat of Navy SEALS visits the country once in a while.
You guys really need to give this up. Somalia has a government. They have a parliament and a constitution. They aren’t warlords any more than the US Senate is. Yes, the '90s were a bit hairy, but a civil war will do that. It turned out more or less OK.
You guys remind me of Paul Heffron.
That’s all true, but Al Shabaab still basically controls half of southern Somalia, or maybe about 25-35% of the whole country.
Probably because getting from to there looks to be a major challenge, not to mention that “there” looks like plastic flowers (from what I can tell, libertarians seem to want there freedom for free, which will not be happening: property rights require a pretty darn strong government), and libertopia does not appear to be stable in the long run.
I mean, if you have a thorough, well-reasoned, sensible formulation for a libertarian society and a practical path to it, by all means, share, so we can assess the probable real-world practicality of it. Otherwise, you are just blowing bits.
No strawman whatsoever. The poster explicitly stated – several times – starting here and continuing on here – that [direct quotes, bracketed & bolded parts mine]:
(a) “society will be better off without a monopolist provider of law and coercion” [i.e.- government],
(b) “This claim has been empirically supported in Somalia”, and
(c) "Government is anathema to libertarianism in so far as it as an aggressor against property rights … Somalian society has little respect for property rights, and inadequate mechanisms for their enforcement. [i.e.- they are doing libertarianism wrong] What is notable about Somalia is how much better off Somalia has been without a strong central government. [but they got that part right!]
So, no strawman. I was responding directly to what was posted.
Know why there haven’t been any? Because the idea that you can have a functional, peaceful, and just society, with all the institutional infrastructure that contemporary civilization requires, simply based on an assertion of “property rights” is so ludicrous that it makes a hippie commune look like a model of evolved pragmatism by comparison. That it’s coupled with a characterization of all forms of governance as “aggression” puts it squarely in the realm of comedy.
I think the hairiness period went on a little longer than you’re implying. The current “national” government was established in late 2012 and wasn’t recognized until 2013. And even now, the government doesn’t control a large part of the country - depending on how you define control, they control about a quarter of the country (although much of that is through alliances with local governments).
Granted, this is an improving situation. As recently as 2010, the government didn’t even have control of the majority of Mogadishu.
The OP could vote with his feet - move to an island somewhere.
Right, but the transitional government is a decade old, and 2010 was four whole years ago! It’s not anarchic nor libertarian. There was a civil war, as there are in many countries. It’s like saying South Carolina in 1864 was a Mad-Max-esque, anarchic wasteland. Not an accurate depiction.
Well, you are pretty much the government of your household. It’s especially true with moms and dads, who are the kings and queens. If the citizens (children) of the household are rebellious, then law and order must be maintained via the parents punishing the citizens (children) of the household.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” - James Madison, *Federalist *51
Government is the warlord that won out against the others. They are the strongmen with guns who won the scuffle. You’re basically saying “I don’t want another bloody Civil War” and neither do (most) anarchists. Arguing against warlords and arguing against government is basically the same thing.
In the 1700s, “democracy” was used similarly to how “anarchy” is today. “You can’t do that! It would be democracy!” – basically synonymous with “utter chaos”. But at a certain point in our cultural evolution, freedom became more important than social order, and we made democracy work. And we found out in the process that “free” (in the relative sense) people were more orderly than the oppressed.
The point of anarchy isn’t to make way for warlords and escalating violence to compete for control over everyone else. The point is to eliminate hierarchical control entirely, or at least to the greatest extent possible. It will take a cultural shift more massive than the Enlightenment, but you have to understand no anarchists are advocating for a “Mad Max” style society. Like any other system of “government”, anarchy shouldn’t be instituted against the will of the people. But a sustained cultural movement towards more freedom (a “freedom for others” stance would be more effective than “freedom for me”) would eventually, in my opinion, convince people over time that top-down big government is unnecessary and against their interests.
I don’t know what an anarchic society would look like, because it will require evolution, not revolution. My guess is that it would look a lot like today, in that social disapproval will sway people’s actions far more than any legal entity on a day-to-day basis. Police, military, infrastructure, healthcare and fire services will probably have some private, voluntary analogs. Government is allowed to exist today for a reason, and the little good it does will need to have some kind of replacement, probably at a much more local level. And maybe some sort of UN style dispute mediation between those local entities. Or maybe it won’t be geographically based at all. It’s totally contingent on how we get to that point, and everyone is right that “getting from here to there” is the tricky part.
Except they aren’t. Everywhere I’ve lived in the US the local, state, and for the most part federal governments represented the will of the people, were voted out when they went in a direction contrary to that will, and generally didn’t take power for themselves. It’s possible for the government to be the strongest strongmen left standing, but that simply isn’t what happens in most places in the west.
Yeah, that’s part of the progression we’ve seen over the past thousand years. Any warlord worth his salt knows you can’t just brutalize and oppress people without having to deal with constant rebellion and chaos. Enlightened warlords over the years have realized giving people a modicum of choice, and the illusion of “say” in their governance (as well as plenty of bread and circuses) makes it a lot easier to hold on to their wealth and power.
I agree, I’m much happier under the US’s representative democracy than I would be under Attila the Hun. But we can’t just be satisfied with a present that’s better than the past. We must also strive to make the future better than the present.
It is the genius of representative democracy that it contains the means for its own peaceful, lawful, widely-understood amendment and improvement. Anarchy, tyranny, oligarchy, theocracy etc. do not.
I agree that anarchy would require evolution. Biological evolution. Ask again in fifty thousand years - maybe by the we’ll be far enough from human for it to work.