There is practically no government and thus practically no restrictions or regulations on anything. Education is a choice because there’s no government to mandate that children be sent to public schools. There’s no Obamacare, no mandates, barely any taxation, etc. Therefore, everything has to run on the free market and on laissez-faire principles. No restrictions on guns. Religion can be expressed freely. There is basically zero government intervention in people’s lives there, whether it be social issues or economic issues. Almost everything is a choice there - close to 100% freedom and liberty.
They probably don’t emigrate there because the Somalis wouldn’t want them, and because the reality isn’t at all like their fantasies. Also, Somalia has recovered enough by now that they have too much government by the standards of such people.
Also, while I get the point you are making it doesn’t work as well as it should because I’ve heard various libertarians use Somalia as a positive example of the virtues of libertarianism and how government *isn’t *needed.
I’m an anarchist , but not a libertarian, minarchist, or anarcho-capitalist. Don’t know if you would have included me in the invite or not…
Anarchy is not the absense of a system, it’s the absence of a structure that puts some people over others in a hierarchy of authority. Somalia is not closer to it than where I am now. If it resembled your description, it would be chaos, the absence of a system. No thanks.
Somalia isn’t libertarian, dumbass. No matter whether you’re talking about libertarianism, conservatism or liberalism, what the government does is just as important a part of the political philosophy as what the government doesn’t do.
Or better yet, why not start a colony on the moon, or Mars? No taxes, no anti-trust laws, no EPA, no Obamacare… Or if you suffer from space sickness, Antarctica is relatively unpopulated.
How can you have a working system without a hierarchy? When everyone is in charge then no-one is in charge. Or, as WS Gilbert puts it, when everyone is somebody then no-one’s anybody.
This is a pretty bad pitting and you should feel bad. Same question could be asked about socialists in the US not emigrating to Venezuela or the former USSR. Though, at least that would be an accurate question. Look up libertarian, I assume you have the internet, and find a reputable source that equates it with anarchy.
What does “reputable source” matter? What matters is how the followers of a belief define it, and plenty of libertarians equate libertarianism with anarchy - especially the “Every man for himself, law of the jungle” variety of anarchy. They just all think that* they’ll* get to be one of the warlords or robber barons instead of one of the victims.
American libertarianism has so obvious avenues of criticism but this is one of the sillier memes. This is like when conservatives ask liberals if they love Mexicans so much why don’t they move to Mexico.
Libertarians usually gush about various business friendly city states, or Switzerland.
Because Somalia doesn’t have all the stuff they want.
They want roads and infrastructure and safety and stability, a strong economy, low crime rate, and reasonably educated people. All the stuff that a strong govt provides.
They just don’t want to pay for it.
There is no country that provides any of these things that is more libertarian than the US, so there is no where they can move. They just want to take over the US, and turn it into Somalia.
Now, there are some jokers in the thread who say that liberals should move to Venezuela or Russia, but that is because they are stupid, and haven’t heard of Canada or France, or Britain, or Germany, or any of the other countries that are first world nation that are far to the left of the US, and are stable and prosperous.
So yeah, if we want to move to the left, we have places we could go (if they would take us), if they want to move to the right, they have to take the country with them.
When I say paying for it, I don’t only mean taxes, but I also mean doing all of the other things that should be expected of a society.
Your buddies are against regulations on pollution, higher wages, occupational safety, education, equality of sexes, equality of races, sexual orientation, women’s rights, gender rights, and a whole host of other things that for some reason bothers them.
That’s paying for it.
And… I also mean taxes. They are against paying taxes, period. That is a party platform for them, lower taxes. Not lower taxes as long as they are used for the greater good.
The only way that your post addresses mine is if you are trying to claim that Somalia is less corrupt than the US.
ETA: just realized, that maybe the first line of your post was a summary of what you were about to write?