# Why don't libertarians, minarchists, and anarcho-capitalists just move emigrate to Somalia? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 10, 2016, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-libertarians-minarchists-and-anarcho-capitalists-just-move-emigrate-to-somalia/774330 "2016-12-10T10:00:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-libertarians-minarchists-and-anarcho-capitalists-just-move-emigrate-to-somalia/774330/41 "2016-12-14T20:36:34Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > Somalia doesn’t have Starbucks. Sure but there is all the khat you want to chew. So it’s a trade off. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-libertarians-minarchists-and-anarcho-capitalists-just-move-emigrate-to-somalia/774330/42 "2016-12-14T20:42:09Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > I can’t believe it took to post 10 for this board to come up with the obvious truth. This board is slipping. Everyone knows that all libertarians, minarchists, and anarcho-capitalists are evil racists who hate and want to murder all non-white people. No, most Libertarians are idiots whose entire philosophy boils down to “Just let me do whatever the fuck I want and I promise everything will work out fine.” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-libertarians-minarchists-and-anarcho-capitalists-just-move-emigrate-to-somalia/774330/43 "2016-12-14T20:57:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **WillFarnaby** : > > The libertarian response to the Somalia argument has been explained many times. People just satisfy themselves by bringing it up as soon as they hear about it, and then continue on their way without considering the response. Yup, and that response is that it’s a stupid argument. None ever seem to actually explain what’s stupid about it, though. > [@](#): > > The libertarians would say that a given society would be made worse by the presence of the state. So they wouldn’t compare industrialized capitalist USA with stateless Somalia. They would compare hypothetical stateless USA with authoritarian USA, or stateless Somalia with Somalia with state. Which is, conveniently, an impossible comparison to make. Just because every stateless place is worse than every place with a state, doesn’t mean that those stateless places wouldn’t be even worse with a state. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-libertarians-minarchists-and-anarcho-capitalists-just-move-emigrate-to-somalia/774330/44 "2016-12-15T01:15:03Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Sure but there is all the khat you want to chew. So it’s a trade off. 😃 Khat is on my bucket list! ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-libertarians-minarchists-and-anarcho-capitalists-just-move-emigrate-to-somalia/774330/45 "2016-12-15T08:52:42Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > 😃 Khat is on my bucket list! It really isn’t that big of a deal. I think it’s only impressive if you grew up never having smoked a joint or drank whiskey. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-libertarians-minarchists-and-anarcho-capitalists-just-move-emigrate-to-somalia/774330/46 "2016-12-15T09:44:09Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > You can have hierarchical arrangements of cell size (meeting size, component size, whatever you wish to call that). Think confederacy. Not as in General Robert E. Lee and the stars and bars and slavery and all that, but where at each and every stage the components of a whole retain their independent authority and cannot be bossed around by the larger collectivity of which they are a part. Nation, state, county, neighborhood, individidual. No bosses. Then what do you do with utter, bull-headed intransigence? If there’s a decision which requires 100% cooperation to be effective, and one person absolutely refuses, come Hell or high water, damn the torpedoes, full NO ahead, what do you do? > [@](#): > > You can have hierarchical arrangement of the permanence of a decision made. You are perhaps familiar with the notion of decision entirely by consensus. Consensus decisions do not involve any form of hierarchical authority, not even of the majority. The problem with pure unmodified consensus is that tomorrow you may not have a consensus about whether or not you reached a state of consensus today. Stir in a model for promoting a decision to increasingly more permanent location in a structure of decisions, though, and you can end up with something you can plan and implement with. Again: Consensus requires the ability, and the willingness, to see that there’s a consensus _even when you are not part of it_, and to abide by that consensus _even if you do not agree with it_. And physical or emotional coercion is hierarchy. Coercion inherently, unavoidably implements hierarchy. > [@](#): > > If you use your imagination you can probably come up with some ideas of your own. Anarchy isn’t liberal or conservative as those are traditionally constituted. The radical right and the radical left both dream of it. Neither has taken a pragmatic approach towards experimenting with implementations though. That last sentence is false. I’m not saying anything about what I think of those experiments, but they happened. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-libertarians-minarchists-and-anarcho-capitalists-just-move-emigrate-to-somalia/774330/47 "2016-12-15T16:53:50Z")
These are thoughtful and useful questions… > [@Derleth](#): > > Then what do you do with utter, bull-headed intransigence? If there’s a decision which requires 100% cooperation to be effective, and one person absolutely refuses, come Hell or high water, damn the torpedoes, full NO ahead, what do you do? What you don’t do is successfully operate as an anarchy. Anarchy doesn’t require saintly selflessness or devotion to the needs of the many and erasure of all desire or any of that crap, but it requires a willingness to play with others. > [@](#): > > Again: Consensus requires the ability, and the willingness, to see that there’s a consensus _even when you are not part of it_, and to abide by that consensus _even if you do not agree with it_. Agreed. So people have to have a vested interest in doing so. The existence of a structure that would let them interact in such a way as to officially reverse that consensus (assuming they can convince the other participants) is the carrot that lures them into accepting and abiding by it in the current moment. > [@](#): > > And physical or emotional coercion is hierarchy. Coercion inherently, unavoidably implements hierarchy. Totally. Could not agree more. Just not seeing where it isn’t a non sequitur. Can you develop where it’s supposed to be sequituring from a bit more clearly? > [@](#): > > That last sentence is false. I’m not saying anything about what I think of those experiments, but they happened. Fair enough. I’ve seen some dismal experiments myself to be honest, but they were very small-scale and they went from the initial starting structure (or nonstructure) directly to “well that didn’t work” with very little attempt to tweak and modify to see if they could fix the observed problems. I don’t really count those as serious experiments. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-libertarians-minarchists-and-anarcho-capitalists-just-move-emigrate-to-somalia/774330/48 "2016-12-15T21:10:27Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > These are thoughtful and useful questions… You’d be surprised what some of your fellow anarchists seem to think of them. > [@](#): > > What you don’t do is successfully operate as an anarchy. Anarchy doesn’t require saintly selflessness or devotion to the needs of the many and erasure of all desire or any of that crap, but it requires a willingness to play with others. Which is why the successful anarchies I’ve seen have all be online, where people can always leave, as opposed to in the physical world, where “you can leave” is a rather hollow promise in many circumstances. You should read [“Homesteading the Noösphere”](http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/) to see one example of what I mean. Open Source projects are anarchies in that nobody, especially not the titular head of a project, can _force_ anyone to do anything; the only thing they have control over is one specific copy of a codebase, and anyone else can fork off their own copy and use it as they will. The realities of what actually occurs are more interesting, but they all rely on that ultimate escape valve, the fact people can just leave in a zero-cost (or close to it) fashion, which is the ultimate recourse of the obstinate. > [@](#): > > Agreed. So people have to have a vested interest in doing so. The existence of a structure that would let them interact in such a way as to officially reverse that consensus (assuming they can convince the other participants) is the carrot that lures them into accepting and abiding by it in the current moment. As for reversing consensus, imagine the religious anarchy and the heretic: Neither will be moved, as a matter of dogma or conscience, so there’s no possible common ground unless some government can step in to either moderate the will of the majority through constitutional protection or force the heretic to conform or leave. I’m sure you can think of other examples where convincing others to change the consensus is a rather hollow premise. > [@](#): > > Totally. Could not agree more. Just not seeing where it isn’t a non sequitur. Can you develop where it’s supposed to be sequituring from a bit more clearly? All the anarchists who assume as a matter of course that the majority will be able to force individuals to do what it wants in its perfect anarchist society. Because, after all, is it still coercion when the body coercing you gets _really really pissy_ if you imply it’s effectively a state, if not a simple mob? > [@](#): > > Fair enough. I’ve seen some dismal experiments myself to be honest, but they were very small-scale and they went from the initial starting structure (or nonstructure) directly to “well that didn’t work” with very little attempt to tweak and modify to see if they could fix the observed problems. I don’t really count those as serious experiments. Don’t fall into the Marxist trap of “if it failed, it wasn’t Marxism”! This is sociology, or political science, not physics. You don’t get pristine initial conditions with everything controlled. If your system can’t survive a rocky start, well, it can’t survive at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-libertarians-minarchists-and-anarcho-capitalists-just-move-emigrate-to-somalia/774330.md?page=2)