|
United States22883 Posts
That's an awfully nice way to simplify a political situation and reduce its s "progress" to basic economic freedom.
Of course that would ignore the fact that the Somalis set up a fairly rigid but useful government of their own that brought stability to the country, until the US started equipping and training warlords and then sent Ethiopia in to break it up. Those warlords would later become many of the pirates we've had so much fun sniping.
Either way, this article is like looking at the box score of a football game and trying to describe how the game went. The man has obviously never set foot in Somalia and I very much doubt he's devoted much of his research to the area, besides the time spent looking at a few numbers for that article. The warlords might've coexisted peacefully on their own? Is he fucking mad?
It's also a bit hilarious that he makes it through the entire article without once mentioning culture or religion, when those two factors are pillars of Somalia's uniqueness when looking at those various metrics. 95%+ Sufism with a strict Muslim code (which was also the basis for their government which was ousted in 2006) is the primary reason why things like literacy and life expectancy went up, and why certain diseases like AIDS stayed so low.
This article is complete shit. You've got two extremely insulated faux-economists living on the opposite side of the world, pretending to understand how a country works based on unreliable metrics and ignoring everything else about their society besides some tax reports.
|
Incredibly misleading title. The only credit anarchy gets here is destroying any previous infastructure there was in the country.
Another article on the subject:
Telecom Firms Thrive in Somolia
There are already mergers between companies and also stake in the companies given to the most powerful of the warring factions. It's only a matter of time before it's whittled down to a monopoly. And to further press into the matter, these phones aren't just appearing out of thin air. They're being made somewhere by someone. And that someone is profiting big time from this.
For a similar instance, google "Phil Heilberg".
|
United States610 Posts
I don't even know what to say. Frankly, I'm shocked that Jibba found the energy to post more than six words in this topic.
|
On July 01 2011 13:26 Jibba wrote:
That's an awfully nice way to simplify a political situation and reduce its s "progress" to basic economic freedom.
Of course that would ignore the fact that the Somalis set up a fairly rigid but useful government of their own that brought stability to the country, until the US started equipping and training warlords and then sent Ethiopia in to break it up. Those warlords would later become many of the pirates we've had so much fun sniping.
Either way, this article is like looking at the box score of a football game and trying to describe how the game went. The man has obviously never set foot in Somalia and I very much doubt he's devoted much of his research to the area, besides the time spent looking at a few numbers for that article. The warlords might've coexisted peacefully on their own? Is he fucking mad?
It's also a bit hilarious that he makes it through the entire article without once mentioning culture or religion, when those two factors are pillars of Somalia's uniqueness when looking at those various metrics. 95%+ Sufism with a strict Muslim code (which was also the basis for their government which was ousted in 2006) is the primary reason why things like literacy and life expectancy went up, and why certain diseases like AIDS stayed so low.
This article is complete shit. You've got two extremely insulated faux-economists living on the opposite side of the world, pretending to understand how a country works based on unreliable metrics and ignoring everything else about their society besides some tax reports.
Quite a few unsubstantiated claims - the US training warlords especially is something ive never heard. When the UN financed government activity would claim the complete opposite. It seems you are unfamiliar with the theory of private production of security - with a long tradition since the works of Molinari in 19th century, hence some misjudged conclusions regarding the opinions of the Author of the article.
|
On July 01 2011 13:41 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 13:26 Jibba wrote:
That's an awfully nice way to simplify a political situation and reduce its s "progress" to basic economic freedom.
Of course that would ignore the fact that the Somalis set up a fairly rigid but useful government of their own that brought stability to the country, until the US started equipping and training warlords and then sent Ethiopia in to break it up. Those warlords would later become many of the pirates we've had so much fun sniping.
Either way, this article is like looking at the box score of a football game and trying to describe how the game went. The man has obviously never set foot in Somalia and I very much doubt he's devoted much of his research to the area, besides the time spent looking at a few numbers for that article. The warlords might've coexisted peacefully on their own? Is he fucking mad?
It's also a bit hilarious that he makes it through the entire article without once mentioning culture or religion, when those two factors are pillars of Somalia's uniqueness when looking at those various metrics. 95%+ Sufism with a strict Muslim code (which was also the basis for their government which was ousted in 2006) is the primary reason why things like literacy and life expectancy went up, and why certain diseases like AIDS stayed so low.
This article is complete shit. You've got two extremely insulated faux-economists living on the opposite side of the world, pretending to understand how a country works based on unreliable metrics and ignoring everything else about their society besides some tax reports. Quite a few unsubstantiated claims - the US training warlords especially is something ive never heard. When the UN financed government activity would claim the complete opposite. It seems you are unfamiliar with the theory of private production of security - with a long tradition since the works of Molinari in 19th century, hence some misjudged conclusions regarding the opinions of the Author of the article.
The video you posted on page two is rather humorous in the context of this thread. Your ends in the thread seem not to be about Somalia, but rather to push your belief in anarchism.
Have you watched the video that you posted? Just compare what the speaker in that video to what is happening in Somalia, which is composed of many warring factions. Are you trying to suggest that the Somali people are happier because they are not 'livestock', as your video suggests that citizens of developed nations are? Are you trying to suggest that they are more free, and because of that freedom most people in the country have a gun to defend themselves? You definitely need to start clarifying your point of view.
|
Anarchy might be good for somalia, but bad for a lot of countries around it. There are huge amount of pirates in critical trade routes and noone from the somali side to reign them in, the navy seems to take out 3-4 ships every week,and there has been a huge increase in the number of sailors taken as hostages by pirates, and almost all the pirates are from somalia.
|
On July 01 2011 12:57 partisan wrote:
This is a joke right? Surely there is not a single sane person that looks at Somalia as a success story. Yea, 20 years of endless violence where its citizens have to turn to piracy to make money.
.
This. Its it still ranked as the worst place in the world to live next to Zimbabwe and Iraq. Half the country is controlled by islamic militants, and corruption/ violence is common place. Women have no rights, there is no system of healthcare or education. Half of the country is starving and are some of the poorest people on earth.
Google - "worst place in the world to live" more than a 100 lists come up from fairly reputable sources (Forbes, Mcleans, ect). Somalia is in the top 4 of every single one.
What a success.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
This is the thing about libertarian viewpoints. I always think I'm being trolled, but no, libertarians actually are that ridiculous.
|
Somalia is not anarchy. You think the people there aren't controlled by forms of government? Just because it is not official or centralized doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They are just as controlled by laws and customs as anyone in a dictatorship, the only difference is in somalia is the controllers are the religious, tribal and factional leaders rather than the government. It is a group of small dictatorships rather than a single country in anarchy. It is human nature to seek power and control by whatever means. True anarchy is impossible as every human is selfish at heart, and puts the needs of the self and their family above the needs of others.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 01 2011 13:41 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 13:26 Jibba wrote:
That's an awfully nice way to simplify a political situation and reduce its s "progress" to basic economic freedom.
Of course that would ignore the fact that the Somalis set up a fairly rigid but useful government of their own that brought stability to the country, until the US started equipping and training warlords and then sent Ethiopia in to break it up. Those warlords would later become many of the pirates we've had so much fun sniping.
Either way, this article is like looking at the box score of a football game and trying to describe how the game went. The man has obviously never set foot in Somalia and I very much doubt he's devoted much of his research to the area, besides the time spent looking at a few numbers for that article. The warlords might've coexisted peacefully on their own? Is he fucking mad?
It's also a bit hilarious that he makes it through the entire article without once mentioning culture or religion, when those two factors are pillars of Somalia's uniqueness when looking at those various metrics. 95%+ Sufism with a strict Muslim code (which was also the basis for their government which was ousted in 2006) is the primary reason why things like literacy and life expectancy went up, and why certain diseases like AIDS stayed so low.
This article is complete shit. You've got two extremely insulated faux-economists living on the opposite side of the world, pretending to understand how a country works based on unreliable metrics and ignoring everything else about their society besides some tax reports. Quite a few unsubstantiated claims - the US training warlords especially is something ive never heard. When the UN financed government activity would claim the complete opposite. It seems you are unfamiliar with the theory of private production of security - with a long tradition since the works of Molinari in 19th century, hence some misjudged conclusions regarding the opinions of the Author of the article. There was a better article on one of the camps before, but I can't find it now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/semperficlub/message/681
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/africa/08intel.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29414-2005Jan22.html
They received the weapons and training from the US in an effort to "counteract" al-Qaeda, which didn't even have a very strong presence in the country at the time. :/ It was basically just another blow back effect, same as Afghanistan was.
|
On July 01 2011 13:22 Mohdoo wrote:
When you compare it to the giant shit hole that is the rest of Africa, sure, its nice.
You guys act like there is something unnatural that happens to make anarchy not work, as if aliens come down and force us into governments. There is nothing external or unnatural about how the world currently is. We are all humans, and no higher beings have changed our development.
"state of nature" is bunch of crap because it assumes only certain parts of humanity are natural -_-
No, the problem with anarchy is that it is fundamentally not a stable situation. Humans tend to clump up, and the whole anarchy breaks down as soon as there is a large enough clump of people with enough strength, for example, in form of weaponry, to impose their will onto others, which also has an interest in doing so. Since in anarchy nothing is stopping such a clump from forming, because you would need a mechanism to combat it, which in itself means that you don't have an anarchy anymore, it is reasonable to assume that such a group would form at some time, and probably sooner rather than later. It is like balancing a ball on top of a sphere. Not stable.
So anarchy is only a fragile passing state until another government emerges. Given the fact that that government is probably based on force of arms foremost, and acceptance from the populace second, while there is no absolute certainty about it one can also assume that that government would probably not have the best interests of the populace in its interest, and instead cater to the wants of that ruling clique. So unless you are in that emerging new ruling clique, that whole thing is probably not a good thing for you.
Edit: As one can see, there is absolutely no supernatural force needed to reason that anarchy is not a working type of government. There is a reason that as far as i know, there has never been an anarchic "government" anywhere for a prolonged period of time. It is that you only need a minority of people who are egoistic enough to break that anarchy.
|
On July 01 2011 14:03 tree.hugger wrote:
This is the thing about libertarian viewpoints. I always think I'm being trolled, but no, libertarians actually are that ridiculous.
-_- From what I hear...it seems like it is either free market or Ron Paul is almost a religion.
|
The reality of modern slavery is not a result of emotions related to suggestions regarding conditions in different areas. It is in fact a definitional issue. And clear at that- what is defined as ownership, property, law, must necessarily imply the condiitions necessary for concluding the reality of slavery. No, it never left, though the prospect of it happening can be somewhat disturbing, none less for myself, hence the cautious approach to a subject grasped at by the more capable members of the Institute.
Now note that the freedom concept as perceived through experience is not subject of the universal definitions that result in conclusions on the subject - it is instead the conditioning. Note how the video touches on this in its assessment of public education, and claims of its real purpose. It is no secret, and a thinking man staying within the boxes of definitional strictness - though it throws himself outside the box of social acceptability. As a result, brave men take that path, and great respect, and fortitude is to be commended. To them - salut, but for the rest of us, the material to ponder about remains in existance - all because of definitional universality.
It is something of a dichotomy between reason from conditions to assessment, and emotions to assessment. While the choice of end assessment always remains subject of emotions, it is the intermediate phase, assessment, which is hijacked by propagandist concepts employed in enslaving the populus.
While reality of conclusions of definitional strictness is sparsely touched upon, as the reactions to article show, it reaffirms the emotion to assessment mechanic - due to fallacy of positivist condition replacing reason. It is the traged of modern mind that Mises has touched upon. The collective delusion exists as such, and its disappearance can only be necessitated by a total paradigm shift in what the epistemological foundations of knowledge in popular mind are considered. Perhaps unlikely given the edicational premise the video touched upon.
|
did you just pulled all that that from some random place?
|
United States812 Posts
On July 01 2011 12:57 partisan wrote:
This is a joke right? Surely there is not a single sane person that looks at Somalia as a success story. Yea, 20 years of endless violence where its citizens have to turn to piracy to make money.
But apparently the US is at fault again, which is great because I was beginning to miss that dead horse.
Read the article, look at the statistics.
On July 01 2011 12:58 askTeivospy wrote:
doesnt change the fact I would never ever want to go to somalia or any other country that lacks any sort of government
Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'd rather be in the United States than Somalia, but I'd probably rather be in Somalia than in any of its neighbors.
Good society with limited government > bad society with either anarchy or government, always. But that is the nirvana fallacy, because:
Good society with government > bad society without government
Good society without government > good society with government > bad society without government > bad society with government
People need to be open-minded enough to realize that the things government "produces" - law, justice, etc - are products like anything else. And like any products, the free market is the most efficient and free way to handle them, and brings the lowest prices and highest quality to consumers.
All government has to offer is coercion and force - in no sector can government hope to compete with the free market good-for-good. It relies on its monopoly of force to exclude others from competing. It is ironic that people object to anarchy because "some warlord will just take over" - government is exactly what you get when that happens. So the worst case outcome of anarchy is... government.
|
On July 01 2011 13:15 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 13:13 Nightfall.589 wrote:On July 01 2011 13:11 Elegy wrote:On July 01 2011 13:10 Nightfall.589 wrote:
Somalia's indeed the poster child for a successful state.
Ranking #182 out of #194 nations in life expectancy (Right above Nigeria, Rwanda, and Afghanistan), where over a quarter children die in their first five years of life, where over a third of the population lacks access to safe drinking water, and 17% are starving... Truly, a libertarian paradise.
Please the read the OP before posting. I did. I'm glad that their thriving telecom industry makes up for the fact that only 13% of boy children (And 7% of girl children) receive a primary education in that country! And the gift of a state would ruin the country's free market utopia. We can't allow that! Yes but...they can make phone calls. From anywhere.
I lauged so hard from this post.
But on a serious note: If I'm reading correctly the OP wrote that Somalia has a weak central government and anarchy is spread throughout the whole country. Is there a way this can last without having a lot more bloodshed and fights for power? Or will we see chaos and the NATO have to step in like always?
|
I have attempted to move the discussion close to the teleological premises of the debate. To avoid emotional distress. This is of highest relevance to the topic, and as such, the careful analysis of conditions that define the subject of discussion allows for cleear insight into reality. In fact this is the Misesian paradigm, strictness to rules, the a priori system of rigorous logic. As the a posteriori school bombards its dogmatic arguments, and i dare say predictable, the answer must be given. No less than full compliance to the conditions necessary for the acceptance of the analytic system.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 01 2011 14:47 brain_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 12:58 askTeivospy wrote:
doesnt change the fact I would never ever want to go to somalia or any other country that lacks any sort of government Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'd rather be in the United States than Somalia, but I'd probably rather be in Somalia than in any of its neighbors.
Somehow, I doubt it. By the way, without checking a map, can you name Somalia's immediate neighbors?
|
And for some reason...we should not be surprised it is the Austrian School guys stating this. Even the Chicago guys think they are full of crap.
|
United States812 Posts
On July 01 2011 14:49 PerkyPenguin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 13:15 Elegy wrote:On July 01 2011 13:13 Nightfall.589 wrote:On July 01 2011 13:11 Elegy wrote:On July 01 2011 13:10 Nightfall.589 wrote:
Somalia's indeed the poster child for a successful state.
Ranking #182 out of #194 nations in life expectancy (Right above Nigeria, Rwanda, and Afghanistan), where over a quarter children die in their first five years of life, where over a third of the population lacks access to safe drinking water, and 17% are starving... Truly, a libertarian paradise.
Please the read the OP before posting. I did. I'm glad that their thriving telecom industry makes up for the fact that only 13% of boy children (And 7% of girl children) receive a primary education in that country! And the gift of a state would ruin the country's free market utopia. We can't allow that! Yes but...they can make phone calls. From anywhere. I lauged so hard from this post. But on a serious note: If I'm reading correctly the OP wrote that Somalia has a weak central government and anarchy is spread throughout the whole country. Is there a way this can last without having a lot more bloodshed and fights for power? Or will we see chaos and the NATO have to step in like always?
It has lasted for 20 years, with the result of improvements outpacing comparable nations. As for "weak central government" that doesn't even come close to describing it- the "government" doesn't even have complete control over the capital.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
